Now is not the time to talk about gun control (1 Viewer)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    Johnson is smugly pious, self-satisfied, arrogant, deeply non-empathetic. Misogynistic as well, just look at his screed blaming feminism for everything that is wrong in the world, and his calm assertion that women should be compelled to bear children. To put it in a way he should understand, he’s a Pharisee.
     
    MT15 said:
    Johnson is smugly pious, self-satisfied, arrogant, deeply non-empathetic. Misogynistic as well, just look at his screed blaming feminism for everything that is wrong in the world, and his calm assertion that women should be compelled to bear children. To put it in a way he should understand, he’s a Pharisee.
    Click to expand...

    In a speech a few years ago, he blamed mass shootings on abortion and no-fault divorce (which fundamentalists hate but studies have shown substantially protect women). He’s a forking full-blown Bible beater. I can’t believe he’s Speaker of the House.
     
    superchuck500 said:
    In case anyone was wondering, the new Speaker confirmed that now is not the time to be talking about guns.

    www.threads.net

    Aaron Rupar (@aaron.rupar) on Threads

    Speaker Mike Johnson dismisses gun control: "The problem is the human heart. It's not guns ... this is not the time to talk about legislation."
    www.threads.net www.threads.net
    Click to expand...
    Bringing back the hits. T&P on deck.
     
    superchuck500 said:
    www.theatlantic.com

    ‘How Much Blood Is Your Fun Worth?’

    I saw the gun-violence epidemic—and my relationship to it as a gun owner—as an abstraction. Then a mass shooting happened in the little city where I work.
    www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com
    Click to expand...

    Another person that had to be "personally affected" in order to think honestly and rationally about guns. Sigh.

    He's right though, gun owners are the problem. All of them collectively. Only they can change it and substantially decrease mass gun violence in America. No amount of thoughts, prayers, God and appeals to "the human heart" will fix it. Only legislation that makes it harder to obtain guns, especially assault rifles, will make a substantial difference in our self created mass murdering epidemic.
     
    This is why you have to carry.

    Screenshot_20231027-140023.png
     
    Wait - so in this totally made up story - where he could have just said anything happened - he says that a woman rolled her eyes at him, and uses that to justify needing a gun to buy a smoothie?

    What a beta, lol. What a small, small man.
     
    Good and sad article
    ================

    There are a few typical responses to mass shootings from people who are unsupportive of restricting access to guns.

    That the fundamental cause of the tragedy was the mental health of the shooter, for example, or that the immediate focus should be on expressing one’s condolences and prayers to those affected.

    The latter of those overlaps with the insistence that the aftermath of a mass shooting is not a moment in which to discuss the politics of gun ownership. It’s too soon, Americans are told; the tragedy too fresh.

    It’s uncouth, crass, coldhearted to pivot from the deaths of multiple people to any discussion about preventing such tragedies in the future.

    Often this response is sincere. People who don’t think that new restrictions on gun ownership should be enacted would be expected to see such advocacy as political or opportunistic.

    But there’s an element of this response that is itself opportunistic: Instead of broaching the subject of gun restrictions when the negative effects of readily accessible firearms is obvious, delaying those discussions until emotions settle means a muted opposition.

    It’s hard not to notice, though, that this restriction on discussing mass shootings in the immediate aftermath of a mass shooting means a seemingly unending restriction on such discussions — thanks to the seemingly unending series of mass shootings.

    To make this point, I created a tool that allows you to see whether any day in the past eight years is one in which it was acceptable to discuss the politics of gun ownership.

    The boundaries of that acceptability are tricky to identify, of course, which is part of the point. When is it “too soon?”

    Certainly in the hours afterward, or even the next day. But a week later? Two? Does it matter how many people died? Whether there’s still ongoing news discussion about mass shootings?

    Instead of making these determinations for you, the tool below looks at five different criteria. If any one of those criteria is violated, the day is deemed unsafe for political discussion. If none of the five are, such discussions were safe.

    The criteria:

    • Whether there was a mass shooting (four or more people shot) on that day
    • Whether there was a mass killing(three or more people killed in one incident) that day
    • Whether there were more than three mass shootings in the prior week
    • Whether any of those mass shootings left at least three people dead
    • Whether cable news mentions of “mass shooting” had declined relative to the average the week prior
    (That last bit of data comes from the Internet Archive’s index of coverage on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News.)

    You might think that this establishes a narrow boundary for acceptability. Perhaps, but it’s not as though no dates fit all five criteria.

    In fact, out of the 2,923 days since Oct. 27, 2015, fully 38 days were ones on which such discussions were safe — plenty of time to figure out a path forward on gun legislation……


     
    Optimus Prime said:
    Good and sad article
    ================

    There are a few typical responses to mass shootings from people who are unsupportive of restricting access to guns.

    That the fundamental cause of the tragedy was the mental health of the shooter, for example, or that the immediate focus should be on expressing one’s condolences and prayers to those affected.

    The latter of those overlaps with the insistence that the aftermath of a mass shooting is not a moment in which to discuss the politics of gun ownership. It’s too soon, Americans are told; the tragedy too fresh.

    It’s uncouth, crass, coldhearted to pivot from the deaths of multiple people to any discussion about preventing such tragedies in the future.

    Often this response is sincere. People who don’t think that new restrictions on gun ownership should be enacted would be expected to see such advocacy as political or opportunistic.

    But there’s an element of this response that is itself opportunistic: Instead of broaching the subject of gun restrictions when the negative effects of readily accessible firearms is obvious, delaying those discussions until emotions settle means a muted opposition.

    It’s hard not to notice, though, that this restriction on discussing mass shootings in the immediate aftermath of a mass shooting means a seemingly unending restriction on such discussions — thanks to the seemingly unending series of mass shootings.

    To make this point, I created a tool that allows you to see whether any day in the past eight years is one in which it was acceptable to discuss the politics of gun ownership.

    The boundaries of that acceptability are tricky to identify, of course, which is part of the point. When is it “too soon?”

    Certainly in the hours afterward, or even the next day. But a week later? Two? Does it matter how many people died? Whether there’s still ongoing news discussion about mass shootings?

    Instead of making these determinations for you, the tool below looks at five different criteria. If any one of those criteria is violated, the day is deemed unsafe for political discussion. If none of the five are, such discussions were safe.

    The criteria:

    • Whether there was a mass shooting (four or more people shot) on that day
    • Whether there was a mass killing(three or more people killed in one incident) that day
    • Whether there were more than three mass shootings in the prior week
    • Whether any of those mass shootings left at least three people dead
    • Whether cable news mentions of “mass shooting” had declined relative to the average the week prior
    (That last bit of data comes from the Internet Archive’s index of coverage on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News.)

    You might think that this establishes a narrow boundary for acceptability. Perhaps, but it’s not as though no dates fit all five criteria.

    In fact, out of the 2,923 days since Oct. 27, 2015, fully 38 days were ones on which such discussions were safe — plenty of time to figure out a path forward on gun legislation……


    Click to expand...
    This thread is getting even more meta.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom