 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| Gun Control is the only way to stop Columbine from happening again. by Zsenicorpse 10/16/2006, 5:26pm PDT | ||||
 |
 |
|||
| After the Columbine shootings, when Congress refused to act, gun-control leaders realized that new approaches would be necessary if they were to do more encouraging and less discouraging of vigorous citizen action. That was the lesson of Columbine: Only a true grass-roots movement for gun control can defeat the NRA and produce the firearms policies Americans desire.
The NRA: not actually full of Americans? I've seen good gun control arguments. I've written good gun control arguments. But this article highlights everything that's wrong with gun control arguments - I mean, even after presenting social science with lip service for only validating observed results in research, she then spins off the totally ludicrous and fear-mongering position that violence exists because guns do, and that Congress refuses to act on gun control because crazy lobbies are oppressing the People's Choice For Gun Control. You know what the real message of Columbine was? Don't fuck with people who have nothing to lose. Submessage: don't reduce people to a state in which they have nothing to lose. This is the same message the Israelis learned in the recent Lebanese conflict. It's totally amazing to me that millions of heartbleedingly compassionate soccer moms are willing to cloak their bloody desires for the pre-emptive threat annihilation in "gun control" - something which, of course, tends much more to reinforce the position of whoever holds the current monopoly on force than anything else. Soccer moms would much rather deal with the occasional gun-wielding wingnut as a vast social problem than they would with the persistent cruelty of their own children or the question of at whose cost they enjoy their comfortable soccer mom lifestyles. Mark Ames agrees with me! |
||||
 |
 |
|||
|
