popper wrote:Nivek wrote:popper wrote:
Zonk, a tool (gun) is not a root (cause) of suicides or violence. If someone uses a hammer to bludgeon someone we don't conclude that the hammer is the root (cause). A gun is certainly more effective and efficient in achieving suicide and committing violence but it is not the root (cause). Shouldn't we determine the causes of suicide and violence and then address those issues first and foremost?
A tool is designed to make doing something easier. A screwdriver, for example, is intended to make it easier to tighten/loosen a screw. A gun is a tool that dramatically increases the trauma that comes from a violent act. If a gun wasn't available, people moved to violence (whatever the cause) would be limited in their ability to cause damage and create trauma. I'm in favor of addressing root causes of violence, suicide, etc. But, I also think there's room for reasonable restrictions on access to a tool that helps someone moved to violence do far more damage than he/she could do with their fists, or a hammer or a bow & arrow.
I'm a conservative gun owner and I agree with you. The lack of trust between the two parties constrains progress on the gun issue, spending/tax/budget issues, etc. If D's would show me that they are serious about attacking the root causes of violence then I would be more willing to trust them on the gun issue. So far that hasn't happened so for now we'll probably remain gridlocked.
I appreciate your first 2 statements however I must take issue with your 3rd statement.
Since when have cons/pubs shown any seriousness about attacking root causes of violence
(or anything else)? Their typical response is to say that whatever someone is proposing to
do can't possibly work, especially if it somehow involves the govt taking action. It's as rare
as snow in Miami to hear anyone from the right propose something that purports to get
at the root cause of virtually any of the serious issues facing the country. Of course maybe
I'm saying that because I don't agree with much of what they consider to be the most serious
problems in the country. But lets start with roughly a third of all children living in poverty.
I think that ought to be considered a serious problem.
What is the conservative proposal to address the root cause of that and how realistic is it?
Or if the subject somehow involves guns, it's worse. Once upon a time several
decades ago, there were reasonable people on either side of the gun 'debate'.
This is what we've come to now.
http://tinyurl.com/d53wz5j His show, "Davis & Emmer," is broadcast by Twin Cities News Talk AM 1130. On his show, he attacked directly, viciously, the Newtown families because they have spoken and continue to speak out in support of stricter gun laws. As quoted by the Star-Tribune, Davis said the following:
“I have something I want to say to the victims of Newtown, or any other shooting. I don’t care if it’s here in Minneapolis or anyplace else. Just because a bad thing happened to you doesn’t mean that you get to put a king in charge of my life. I’m sorry that you suffered a tragedy, but you know what? Deal with it, and don’t force me to lose my liberty, which is a greater tragedy than your loss. I’m sick and tired of seeing these victims trotted out, given rides on Air Force One, hauled into the Senate well, and everyone is just afraid — they’re terrified of these victims.
“I would stand in front of them and tell them, ‘Go to hell.’”
one can only hope the seeds of their own demise as a political force are right there in
the extremism and anger of this philosophy.
