Allegedly.

Anybody gobsmacked about the NRA's recent reaction to the school shooting? Did it strike anyone else as completely tone deaf?

No. It was not the gun that killed. It was an evil person. Guns are tools, and can be used to help or harm.

What bothered you about the NRA's statement?

The last two sentences were quite telling

Tone deaf is a mild criticism. The head of the NRA makes a lot of money and he is completely indifferent to the human misery and suffering caused to others by guns. His speech was pathetic, blamed everything else but guns, and reflected the moral vacuum in which he operates.

geojanes wrote:Anybody gobsmacked about the NRA's recent reaction to the school shooting? Did it strike anyone else as completely tone deaf?

It did not strike me as tone deaf. It struck me as an attempt to take emotion out of the discussion. It was the equvalent of a statistics response to the "if your daughter was raped" question. Whether the idea proposed was good or not, I applaud the attempt. Legislative from emotion only brings about bad laws.

archduke

Legislative from emotion only brings about bad laws

Is the defence of unrestricted gun ownership or the 2nd amendment emotional or rationale in your opinion?

If its entirely rationale, why is the experience of other nations who enacted tough gun laws (Australia) for instance, seldom accepted as relevant.?
If its entirely rationale why is modern culture (video guns and movies) offered as a cause when all other western nations have the same culture but not the same gun violence?
If the defence of gun ownership is entirely rationale why is mental health offered as a cause? if mental instability and mentally ill people were the cause of the violence why is it that other western nations don't have the same violence. The USA actually does a pretty good job of dealing with mental illness compared to its peers. Moreover, where gun violence is 35 times higher than in a place like France - there aren't 35X more mentally ill people in the USA>

The defence of gun ownership in its current format is almost entirely emotional.That some of the attacks on gun ownership are emotional is down to the emotion caused by an even involving guns. It is NOT wrong to react to the deaths of 20 school children, or 18 movie goers, or13 mall shoppers or any of the 30,000 victims of guns . Discounting the emotional response as invalid is wrong.
If legislation that results from emotional response makes bad laws, the laws that were enacted in Australia that rid that country of automatic and semi automatic weapons would have been disastrous. But it has effectively reduced gun violence to previously unknown levels. And none of the predictions about higher crime rates or multitudes of people becoming victims because they couldn't defend themselves ever came to pass.
Australians react to a mass shooting with great emotion and created and enforced a law that has greatly improved their society.

With regard to LaPierre being rational and not emotional. I would point out that he was acting as an advocate and not as an impartial observer..
That doesn't mean what he said is necessarily wrong, but one would expect him to select evidence in support of not regulating guns. But let's look at what he proposed: (1) preventing the mentally ill from getting access to guns ( while laudable in principle there are major civil liberty issues here), 2) censorship of violent films and video games (major concerns about infringing the 1st Amendment here), and (3) putting an armed guard in every school ( estimated to cost several billion dollars and making a major change that every child in Americs has with regard to going to school) At most, the NRA is facing an assault weapons ban and a limitation on gun clips.
The impact would be that some owners would not have as much fun shooting targets. Hmm.,. major changes n US society and infringing on fundamental rights or Bubba doesn't have as much fun shootings guns in the desert--what would Mr Spock say?

ARJ, problem is that ricky was flamed by DF for not showing emotion (and by extension it was aimed at the 'liberals'). Now we are supposed to abandon emotion.

While the impetus to change the law does come in part from the emotional reaction to events like Sandy Hook. However, (and sadly) we've been reacting to mass shootings from the USA for some time, and in the meantime there's actually been some thought.

Whereas this NRA guy is all about unthinking reaction. Anything to try and stop gun control, and if possible, sell more guns. Armed guards didn't stop Colombine. An armed response unit didn't stop Virginia Tech.

For all the misdirection, such as blaming video games (because places around the world have Call of Duty too, you know, but not the rates of gun murder), there are really some simple issues at hand. It's too easy for someone who wants to kill lots of people to get hold of a gun that makes it quick and deadly. There are several ways to deal with mental illness (but it's obvious that many people who are dangerous are not going to be detected until after they have demonstrated that they are a danger, and there is a major risk that Krauthammer's suggestion would lead to a lot of people who are not a danger being committed (but hey, freedom not to be sectioned isn't in the Constitution I guess). There is a problem, and dancing around the gun thing is itself - I think- is more about an emotional attachment to guns and the totem that they are than about a calm rational reponse.

danivon wrote:ARJ, problem is that ricky was flamed by DF for not showing emotion (and by extension it was aimed at the 'liberals'). Now we are supposed to abandon emotion.

Time and place.

Just as it would (and was) wrong for conservatives to celebrate "homeschooling" or call for armed teachers within a few hours of the shooting, it's also wrong for liberals to not even know the facts before they jump on the "ban assault weapons" bandwagon. He posted that general notion within a very short period of time.

While the impetus to change the law does come in part from the emotional reaction to events like Sandy Hook. However, (and sadly) we've been reacting to mass shootings from the USA for some time, and in the meantime there's actually been some thought.

Yet, no one in politics, from the President on down, has proposed anything that would have prevented the shooting AND is Constitutional.

I think- is more about an emotional attachment to guns and the totem that they are than about a calm rational reponse.

And, of course, the calm, rational response is . . . ?

Ban guns.

Doctor Fate wrote:And, of course, the calm, rational response is . . . ?

Ban guns.

Please point to where I have called for a full ban on guns. I can show where I've said that I don't want to remove all guns.

If you are being calm and rational when you mischaracterise my argument, then it must be deliberate, right?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:And, of course, the calm, rational response is . . . ?

Ban guns.

Please point to where I have called for a full ban on guns. I can show where I've said that I don't want to remove all guns.

If you are being calm and rational when you mischaracterise my argument, then it must be deliberate, right?

I didn't say you said that.

fate

Just as it would (and was) wrong for conservatives to celebrate "homeschooling" or call for armed teachers within a few hours of the shooting, it's also wrong for liberals to not even know the facts before they jump on the "ban assault weapons" bandwagon. He posted that general notion within a very short period of time.

You know Fate, whenever you quote people, without actually quoting them, its always some distorted version that fits your prejudices. Bbauska had made an admission of his willingness to accept the fruits of gun violence, for the freedom offered by the 2nd Amendment.
The events of the 14th immediately struck me as being one of the results, whatever guns were used. The emotion that erupts when innocents, especially children (emotions you self righteously, believe belong only to you. ) puts the argument about the "price we have to pay" under great scrutiny. SO, here's what I wrote:

bbauska

Unfortunately the great many deaths we must endure due to a proliferation of guns is the price we will continue to pay for the freedom we enjoy to carry weapons."

It is not simple, but it is one of the many costs for freedom

Rickyp

According to AP:
27 dead today in Connecticut. Including 18 children .
Are you sure the freedom to carry guns is worth this cost Bbauska?
Anyone in the American media who brings up the issue of gun control over the next two or three days will be accused of exploiting the Connecticut shootings. That its too soon to have a discussion about gun control....
When really, its too late.

I should have also predicted that you'd claim exploitation, not just the media, since that was also a certainty.
Now tell me Fate; how do you read into that every thing you can?

The arguments about guns are often emotional.
But the argument about freedom and the 2nd amendment are almost entirely emotional.
Whereas opponents of gun ownership or those who wish sensible controls offer an abundance of evidence about what effective gun laws have accomplished, the counter argument - other than the discredited "research provided by Lott -
comes down to either hypothetical or hiding behind the 2nd Amendment.
"You'll never get anything accomplished because of the 2nd Amendment "

Archduke said that reacting to emotions makes bad laws". I'd say it contributes to defending bad law too. Like American gun laws. And contributes to making good laws...
Australians were capable of harnessing their emotions to construct and enforce very effective gun laws that have stood the test of 10 years.
Americans reacted emotionally to the civil rights marches, especially Kings speech, to finally over come two hundred years of racial persecution and inequality . Lincoln may have freed thee slaves, but he didn't stop lynchings (a law that would have was stopped in the Senate in the 1920s), he didn't stop Jim Crow Laws or segregation or discrimination... It wasn't till the emotion filled demonstrations of the 50's and 60's and overt acts of courage by civil rights demonstrators that the issue was fundamentally settled...
And those were good laws.
An emotional response to Sandy Hook, might well serve the same purpose. Because although I agree with Bbauska that the price of the 2nd Amendment, and current guns laws are thousands of deaths. Including children. I agree with him and I think it will continue till something is accomplished in law and enforcement, that is effective, even if it restricts individuals rights in this matter.And I think that has to happen.
Because I fundamentally disagree that the cost of all those deaths , and especially children, is worth enduring in order to continue the status quo. Especially when what is offered in defence, is almost entirely emotional as well. Its just that I can't balance children's lives with the freedom to enjoy handling and firing a semi automatic... Surely that's a sacrifice that could be borne if it ended these kinds of events?
As it has in Australia.

danivon wrote:ARJ, problem is that ricky was flamed by DF for not showing emotion (and by extension it was aimed at the 'liberals'). Now we are supposed to abandon emotion.

I was not aware of that. I haven't read ricky's crap in ages and I tend to just skim DF's. However, that doesn't change the fact that legislating from emotion only gets you bad laws. Megan McArdle has a good article on the topic. It's long but worth the read. This part is from the end of the article.

It would certainly be more comfortable for me to endorse doing something symbolic--bring back the "assault weapons ban"--in order to signal that I care. But I would rather do nothing than do something stupid because it makes us feel better. We shouldn't have laws on the books unless we think there's a good chance they'll work: they add regulatory complexity and sap law-enforcement resources from more needed tasks. This is not because I don't care about dead children; my heart, like yours, broke about a thousand times this weekend. But they will not breathe again because we pass a law. A law would make us feel better, because it would make us feel as if we'd "done something", as if we'd made it less likely that more children would die. But I think that would be false security. And false security is more dangerous than none.

I read the article. She sounds reasonable (even saying that she would not mind limiting magazines to 10 bullets) but the arguments that she used against attempting some gun control are unconvincing. She argues that the ten year ban did not reduce gun violence and that we had mass shootings like Columbine. This argument is so off-target that it makes me wonder if she is arguing in good faith. The fact is that mass shootings generally trended downward in the ten years of the ban(except for the Columbine year) and they have doubled since then. See http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkb ... -one-post/

So when the issue is whether mass shootings went down under the ban, she decides to first argue about a different issue (overall gun violence) and then implies that the mass shootings did not go down under the gun ban (not true) and does not mention that mass shootings have doubled since it ended. She should have made an argument about causation

She argues that gun owners have a legitimate basis for fearing that gun control proponents would not stop at banning assault weapons and would eventually try to seize all guns. But when she argues that the only effective way to stop the shootings is to ban all guns, she says that would never happen (apart from the Supreme Court) because too many oppose it. See the contradiction? No reason to worry about a slippery slope into banning all guns when you ban some when there is a bedrock of support for the 2nd Amendment.

She notes that part of the motivation of these shooters is the exercise of power, but fails to even note that having powerful weapons with large magazines may contribute to giving these shooters the feeling of power necessary to do the shooting
She says even with smaller magazines shooters can change them quickly,but neglects to point out the Arizona shooter was only stopped when he had to reload

She does (weakly) make the argument that the overall homicide rate woul go down if guns were outlawed, though it is not clear that she believes it would outweigh defensive uses of guns.

The best argument you can honestly make is that (1) mass shooting deaths make up a small percentage of overall gun deaths and that it is difficult to prove causation with regard to the prior gun ban (because of limited data and the difficulty of controlling for other variables). The arguments she did make were mostly specious.