Actual responses to the Tucson shooting — that is, something that might actually stop similar tragedies in the future or reduce the carnage — seem to be limited to a proposal in Congress to ban the sale of the kind of ammunition clip that allowed the gunman to fire 31 shots in 15 seconds. That bill is stalled at the gate. Perhaps Congress has been too busy repeatedly voting on bills to repeal the health care law to think about anything else. But, so far, the gun-clip ban has zero Republican supporters, which is a problem given the matter of the Republicans being in the House majority
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Gail Collins on Tucson
Hits it out of the park:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Damn!!! There's that ugly majority issue again!!
ReplyDeleteIt stalled at the gate because there is no support for it.
ReplyDeleteCongress has lets see.....two wars, the economy, enmass political upheaval in the middle east, the economy, a nuke meltdown in japan, the economy, a civil war all but erupting in Mexico, the economy, devastation in japan, and a few other things on their plate.
Wasting time on legislation that has no popular support and which has proven in the past to be a boondoggle really doesn't make sense considering three quarters of the congressmembers were elected as pro gun or at least gun neutral candidates.
It is stalled at the gates because despite majority support for it from the populace, the politicians on the right ignore what the people who elected them want, in favor of what their big donors tell them to do.
ReplyDeleteMoney, from rich people talks louder than regular people. Which reflects an arrogant overreach on teh right that keeps getting them thrown out of the majority - and will again.
Dog Gone. What are you smoking? Three quarters of the people elected ran as pro gun rights or at least receptive to no new gun laws. That in a large part is what got them elected.
ReplyDeleteI have yet to see a great deal of "rich "people trumpeting gun rights. I see an awful lot of grass roots support for guns but none for control. I do see lots of rich celebs posing as guncontrollers, from Oprah to Streisand, Stallone to Rosie. All using their public forum to espouse their views, which is fine. They have that right just as the majority of the nations populace has a Right to ignore them
The ONLY poll that counts are elections. All other polls have agendas. If the discussions are worded factually and fairly, expanding gun control fails every time to gather support.
At least Republicans are good for something.
ReplyDelete"Wasting time on legislation that has no popular support and which has proven in the past to be a boondoggle really doesn't make sense considering three quarters of the congressmembers were elected as pro gun or at least gun neutral candidates."
ReplyDeleteOdd as it might seem, those same conditions have not kept the majority from having hearings on "radical islam" in the U.S.. Nor has that sort of press of business concern gotten in the way of shitheads like Scott Walker trying to break the backs of the public employees' unions in WI.
Nearly the entire congress calls itself "christian", as well (you say 3/4 of them support gun rights) but I don't think you'll find that many going to church on sunday or tithing--just a hunch.
"because despite majority support for it from the populace,"
ReplyDeletedog gone, stop hiding behind the cuteness and come into the light. Let us go over those number again. The majority people understand it ain't about the bullets in the magazine, it is/was the craziness of the individual.
4,800,000 paying members of one organization say you are wrong. The Brady Bunch at 15,000 says you are right, truly the majority is on the right side! Maybe Obama can make a speech about gun laws, oh wait, he told the Mexican Prime Minister we have a 2nd amendment and he loves the individual right to have a gun for self protection. The messiah is falling from grace.
Dannytheman said, as if everyone agrees, "The majority people understand it ain't about the bullets in the magazine, it is/was the craziness of the individual."
ReplyDeleteI'd say it like this. It ain't about the bullets and the size of the magazine, but it is very much about the availability of guns.
The craziness of the individual would be a lot less damaging if not for the easy access to weapons, about which something should be done.
It has nothing to do availability. It is about poverty drugs and crime. Legal gun owners are statistically a very low crime demographic. Legal gun buyers just don't do crime.
ReplyDeleteHindsite is always 20-20, Mike.
ReplyDeleteI have said this before and you never respond the comparison.
IF a crazed individual had bought a truck, maybe a cheap used one, and drove it into a crowd of people, say they were standing in a parking lot of a supermarket, would you call for a ban on trucks, cheap trucks or anything that with wheels?
You have to get passed the implement and start reviewing the facts.
Baseball bats kill, no ban asked?
Knives kill, no ban asked?
Drowning counts for 3.9% of accidental deaths.
Exposure to fire, flames and smoke accounts for 3.4%.
Complications from surgery accounts for 2.2%.
Accidental (Or Negligent)Discharge by gun fire? 0.8%.
People falling down die more, Mike. Falls are 0.9%
Please do some research.
Oh, I left out motor vehicle deaths. Just 44.1%.
We need to go after cars. Ban them all!!
Ah, once again the "baseball bats kill, slip and falls kill, automobiles kill." false equivalency argument.
ReplyDeleteAutomobiles are designed to transport people from one place to another, as are planes and other vehicles. Bathtubs and showers are designed for cleaning our bodies. Baseball bats are designed to hit baseballs (although they bear an amazing resemblance to clubs, man's first personal weapon). That they cause death in some instances is a bug, not a feature.
Guns are designed, specifically, for killing. You may choose to shoot targets when you pull the trigger but that is not what they are designed for.
That's okay, fellas, keep on complaining about the evil gummint comin' to take your guns away AND putting a photo of yourself on your blog so they'll know who they're there to deal with when the FEMA camps are ready.
P sqid, "It has nothing to do availability. It is about poverty drugs and crime. Legal gun owners are statistically a very low crime demographic. Legal gun buyers just don't do crime."
ReplyDeleteIt has NOTHING to do with availability, really? Gun availability plays a part in the story entitled Overall Causes of Violence, as does "poverty, drugs and crime."
The legal gun owners who "just don't do crime," actually do. We're really arguing if the percentage is significant enough to worry about. I say it is. But even worse than the crimes they commit themselves, they are responsible for the gun flow into the criminal world. Through straw purchasing and theft, guns flow continually into the criminal world. Much of this is directly due to the negligence of gun owners and the laxity of gun laws which they support.
"Guns are designed, specifically, for killing. You may choose to shoot targets when you pull the trigger but that is not what they are designed for."
ReplyDeleteIf that's the case, then they're doing a horrible job of it, because guns can't keep up with drowning, cars, baseball bats and aiplanes for sheer volume.
Oh well, it was a good try, commie.