Of Course Today Is The Day to Talk About Gun Control

[aGameOfThrones]

The entire point of technology is to work to our benefit, not against us. The entire point of being a responsible, reasoned human being is to face our failings head-on, not to hide from them. Those points seem inarguable.

So why is it that the only time we're not allowed to talk about guns as agents of horrific devastation is on the days they're used for just that?

There are echoes, familiar ones, from the gun advocates today. They say not to politicize today's tragedy in Connecticut. They say today is not the day to talk about gun control. They say it's too soon. They are wrong.

Guns are technology. And since the Industrial age, when a technology causes harm, it has immediately been regulated to make sure that harm doesn't happen again. When the Challenger exploded, we didn't waste any time finding out what went wrong. When a meningitis outbreak swept the United States in October, we didn't wait until people stopped dying to identify the steroid that caused it. When a software bug turned hundreds of thousands of Toyotas into unstable land-rockets, no one shouted politicization when the recall was announced. We fixed it.

But guns don't kill people, people do. Fine. By that logic, cars don't kill people. But we still have speed limits. We still have to wear seat belts. We still need to take a driver's test. And yet it's far harder in most parts of this country to get a learner's permit than a gun permit.

We didn't blame airplanes(after 9/11), no. But you know what we did do that very first day? Grounded all of them until we figured out how to make them safer. Then we figured out how to make sure the wrong people don't get on them(LOL TSA).

Unlike cars and planes, a gun is a thing that is designed to help you injure other things (ideally deer or robbers, but really anything you point it at). They're built with a degree of inherent malice. So why should they, of all things, get a pass? Why should we hem and haw over this one piece of technology when we take such decisive action everywhere else?

The only answer I can think of is that gun tragedies are so much more tragic. And that's true, they are. But it's about time we realized that's just all the more reason not to delay. Not this time, not ever.

http: //gizmodo. com/5968608/of-course-today-is-the-day-to-talk-about-gun-control

[thoughtomator]

By that logic, Gizmodo ought to be shut down because some sites traffick in child porn, and until we find a way to stop it 100% no web site should be allowed to remain on the Internet.

[acptulsa]

That's true. Today is the day to talk about gun control. Specifically, we should intrude on the families' grief to remind the whole country that guns were not legal in that school, so the only person in that school who had a gun was the psycho who didn't care about obeying the law.

We can't put cops everywhere. We don't want cops everywhere, because that would make us the Soviet Union, and that nation wasn't famous for its quality of life. We can't find enough people who are fit to be cops and want to be cops to maintain the number of cops we have. Every time a law abiding citizen arms himself, it redresses the balance in a good way, because criminals have a long and undeniable history of not caring whether they're allowed to carry guns or not.

It might seem like someone in a position of power wants the whole nation taken over by criminals. This is no coincidence. Someone does want the whole nation taken over by criminals. Washington, D.C. has already been taken over by criminals, and they want to enlarge their mafia. After all, if we can defend ourselves against the petty criminals, we can also defend ourselves against the major criminals.

The sooner people learn to equate a politician saying, 'Pay your taxes and support your police' to a mafia don offering to sell you protection, the better off we'll be.

[rp08orbust]

Is Gizmodo calling on Obama to immediately cease all drone attacks until we figure out a way to prevent all innocent civilians from being harmed?

[Natural Citizen]

I specifically remember saying that we need to ask our representatives what their view is on science and technology. But it went in and out of the ears of everyone. Ignored to go squabble about silly shit that is the carrot on the end of the stick leading them right back to the beginning of the very circle in which they started. Take prop 37 for example. We want to let monsanto genetically modify our food (thus, us too) but "Oh, no...it's ok if they don't tell us what's in it and how it changes the human gnome". We don't want to know about that. That would impede upon their rights as ahem...people...to practice this "market". Well, guess what? The same thing is happening with psychiatric drugs and psychiatrists are complicit in it. That's a software approach to engineering behavior. That's ignored. Do we think for a second that multi-national corporations are not producing a hardware approach? And applying it? If not then think again. Skip the guns and all of that and look at the real technology that is applied. Discuss that for a change. Gosh. I just got done telling Collins this very same thing over in the other thread. I'm beginning to think I'm wasting my time here. Wow. Just such a complete waste of time to even bother with the general public. They don't want to learn. So they'll continue to get exactly what it is that they do so faithfully support and ask for. I'm done with them. This will be my last post here.

[sevin]

Ridiculous.

I highly recommend gun advocates read and share this post: A Mathematical Approach To What Causes Gun Murder In America (http://www.revolutionbox.org/Thread-A-Mathematical-Approach-to-What-Causes-Gun-Murder-in-America).

[Ronulus]

How about those drones. That technology kills innocent children too. Certainly has killed many more than what happened in CT recently.

[phill4paul]

Ridiculous.

I highly recommend gun advocates read and share this post: A Mathematical Approach To What Causes Gun Murder In America (http://www.revolutionbox.org/Thread-A-Mathematical-Approach-to-What-Causes-Gun-Murder-in-America).

+rep

[acptulsa]

NBC, scion of the liberal media, pitted six pro-gun control advocates against one rather pitiful fat man who was kind of anti-gun control. Pretty much what you'd expect from the 'liberal media'. Thank God we have an alternative.

Or do we? So far, Fox owner Rupert Murdoch has come out in favor of an assault weapons ban (quoted on Meet the Press, but not so far on Fox Sunday Morning). And, so far, Sunday Morning has yet to come up with one anti-gun control talking head. Sen. Durbin? Really, Fox? Chris Wallace just called a Glock semi-auto pistol a 'weapon of mass destruction'. Seriously.

How hard is it to ask, what if the principal of that school had also been armed?

Fox is showing its true colors. I hope we're capturing this video. It's past time to show the nation whose side Fox is really on.

P.S. Wallace just mentioned the Oregon mall shooting, but completely failed to note that a citizen with a concealed weapon may have caused the shooter to end his spree early.

[aGameOfThrones]

In dissent, Judge Ann Williams said governments have a strong interest in regulating guns on the street. "It is common sense, as the majority recognizes, that a gun is dangerous to more people when carried outside the home. When firearms are carried outside the home, the safety of a broader range of citizens is at issue. The risk of being injured or killed now extends to strangers, law enforcement personnel, and other private citizens who happen to be in the area," Williams said. (http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-fight-looms-over-carry-gun-100107234.html)

Glad this is not directed at cops shooting indiscriminately in public.