# Did Rand Paul say political involvement of parents of gunned down kids is inappropriate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 18, 2013, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003 "2013-04-18T03:03:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/21 "2013-04-18T13:24:26Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I agree with your assessment of Rand Paul, however I do not agree that what he says is factual. > > It would be just as ‘factual’ to call the President a prop for the families. > > My view us that ‘props’ is improper for either, because they are in agreement on what needs to be done. The parents and the President are not putting on a performance acting out something in which they do not believe. I meant that his words were recorded and a matter of fact, not the content. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/22 "2013-04-18T13:37:43Z")
Another relevant portion of Paul’s remarks, from **WillFarnaby** ’s link: > [@](#): > > “It is largely a mistake to talk about issues in the wake of crisis, in the wake of tragedy,” he said. > > Senator Paul, the founder of the Senate Tea Party Caucus, said he thought gun control “is a legitimate issue for our country to debate and decide where and how we can fix the problems of violence.” He’s right that actions in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy can be driven by emotion instead of reason, and produce outcomes that seem irrational in the light of subsequent cool reflection. See: internment of Japanese-Americans, the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq War. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > No thanks Kentucky. Is this the best you can do? You vote for your senators, we’ll vote for ours, that’s how it works. Paul won 55.7% of the popular vote, not 100%, so even if you hate him, tarnishing the whole Commonwealth over it is rather small of you. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/23 "2013-04-18T13:47:49Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Why isn’t this is in the Pit? What Rand said is a factual matter. The only debate is about how stupid and cowardly he is. What is cowardly about it? It might not be politically wise, but cowardly? It would be cowardly to think it but not say it for fear of the consequences. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/24 "2013-04-18T13:55:48Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > I’ll try to remember this “people as props is shameful” argument the next time I’m asked to give someone who’s been in the army a standing ovation for no reason. Oh yeah, please do. The exploitation of the military has a long and storied tradition. I was in the Army. I got a couple of those ovations. It’s in everyone’s best interests for those to stop. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/25 "2013-04-18T13:58:36Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What is cowardly about it? It might not be politically wise, but cowardly? It would be cowardly to think it but not say it for fear of the consequences. I think he’s a coward in general, but in this case if he thought there was something wrong with the victims at Sandy Hook coming to see him he should have told them, not couch it all in weasel words. I see Rand as a snotty prick complaining about how hard his job is when he has to look at the reality of his political philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/26 "2013-04-18T14:01:04Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I think he’s a coward in general, but in this case if he thought there was something wrong with the victims at Sandy Hook coming to see him he should have told them, He did. His comments were public, not private. > [@](#): > > not couch it all in weasel words. Which of his words are weasel words? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/27 "2013-04-18T14:01:19Z")
I agree with Rand Paul about this as a general principle (although I’m not much of a guns rights guy on the whole). But it’s well trodden ground. It’s not like Obama is the first politician to do this, or even the thousandth. I’ve been irked over the years by the enormous input that the families of 9/11 victims have had on all sorts of policy decisions, to pick one recent example. That’s democracy for you … ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/28 "2013-04-18T14:03:56Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Public policy decisions should be made by the most rational, informed people. Appeals to emotion are meant to bypass such things. These people are only used as tools to appeal to emotion. They have no special rational knowledge about the issue, just emotional ties to tug at heart strings. > > So yes, they’re props to try to stir up a frenzy to capitalize on the hysteria after these sorts of incidents. They deserve no special status as experts on public policy. > > I’d say that outside the gun issue. I mean, I wouldn’t want FAA decisions on the future of air travel to be determined by the hysterical crying family members of someone who just died in a plane crash either. But in each case, they’re not being held out as “experts.” They’re not making decisions. They’re mainly just making a statement that something ought to be done. I’m not sure why an emotional argument in favor of action (not the specific formulation thereof) should be categorically inappropriate. I mean–rational, informed people still need _reasons_. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/29 "2013-04-18T14:07:35Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > If there is one thing grieving parents need it is to be told how to behave by politicians. I know you posted this before the actual quote was posted, but do you now see that he was talking to Obama, not the parents? ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/30 "2013-04-18T14:13:44Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > He’s right that actions in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy can be driven by emotion instead of reason, and produce outcomes that seem irrational in the light of subsequent cool reflection. See: internment of Japanese-Americans, the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq War. But you agree, I’m sure, that Pearl Harbor and 9/11 demanded action in their immediate aftermath. Calling symposia for leisurely debate before doing _anything_ would have been wildly inappropriate. The ‘emotional’ cry for a response was _right_; it was the actual decision-makers, the supposed experts, the people whose job was to implement rationality in answering the call of emotional necessity, who fucked it up. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/31 "2013-04-18T14:13:46Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > It is an apt description. These people are used solely to provoke an emotional response. In the entire country, they are among the least-qualified people to make a rational decision on gun control policy. Have you really thought about this argument? People who are affected by a problem have always spoke out and driven solutions to the problem. Be they returning injured war vets, victims of violent crime, ill people suffering from the side effects of pollution, people fleeced by unethical corporations, those facing unfair tax policies of a confiscatory government, victims of medical malpractice or experimentation, people subjected to discrimination, workers being mistreated by employers, and those suffering from abuse by police or other authorities. By your argument the least qualified people to make rational policy decisions included the tea protesters in Boston, the marchers in Selma, and the union organizers in Chicago. Or if this is not your argument, what is different about this issue? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/32 "2013-04-18T14:24:11Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > But you agree, I’m sure, that Pearl Harbor and 9/11 demanded action in their immediate aftermath. Calling symposia for leisurely debate before doing _anything_ would have been wildly inappropriate. > > The ‘emotional’ cry for a response was _right_; it was the actual decision-makers, the supposed experts, the people whose job was to implement rationality in answering the call of emotional necessity, who fucked it up. Maybe that’s why he said “can be driven by emotion” instead of “are always driven by emotion”. And in your examples, an “emotional response” might have been to drop a nuke on Afghanistan (wrong) or imprison Japanese (wrong). Going to war was a rational response to the facts, not an emotional one. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/33 "2013-04-18T14:38:07Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > But you agree, I’m sure, that Pearl Harbor and 9/11 demanded action in their immediate aftermath. Calling symposia for leisurely debate before doing _anything_ would have been wildly inappropriate. > > The ‘emotional’ cry for a response was _right_; it was the actual decision-makers, the supposed experts, the people whose job was to implement rationality in answering the call of emotional necessity, who fucked it up. Pearl Harbor represented an immediate, ongoing threat: war with the Japanese Empire. 9/11 represented a semi-immediate, semi-ongoing threat: Al-Qaeda. The Newtown shooting represents neither; the killer is dead. This is exactly the sort of situation that allows for leisurely debate and cool reflection. The ‘emotional cry’ is seldem just “we need a response of some kind, at your convenience”, it’s a call for specific actions that are based on emotion, even hysteria. In the case of Japanese-American internment, organizations like the Native Sons and Daughters of the Golden West and the California branch of the American Legion specifically called for those of Japanese ancestry or birth to be placed in concentration camps. In the aftermath of 9/11, we had sentiments like [this](http://old.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml) floating around in national periodicals: > [@](#): > > We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. The popular call for senseless action must be resisted, and one way to achieve that is, in cases with no immediate threat, to take time to study the issues before acting. Another way, as was referenced above, is to freeze out the most radical and dogmatic voices from the debate and listen to the moderates. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/34 "2013-04-18T14:38:38Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Why isn’t this is in the Pit? What Rand said is a factual matter. The only debate is about how stupid and cowardly he is. The coward would be the president using them as props in a public concern that[rates 4% against other problems](http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-only-4-americans-think-gun-control-important-problem). He’s using this as a publicity stunt to divert attention away from high unemployment and economic issues. It’s being reported in the news as if it was a done deal if the Senate voted it in when it’s not even being considered for a vote in the House. But it was heartening to see the President use the most expensive limousine in the world to fly his props around. I’m sure they enjoyed it. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/35 "2013-04-18T15:01:46Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The coward would be the president using them as props in a public concern that[rates 4% against other problems](http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-only-4-americans-think-gun-control-important-problem). He’s using this as a publicity stunt to divert attention away from high unemployment and economic issues. It’s being reported in the news as if it was a done deal if the Senate voted it in when it’s not even being considered for a vote in the House. > > But it was heartening to see the President use the most expensive limousine in the world to fly his props around. I’m sure they enjoyed it. Are you also against gun owners speaking to Congress about their need for self-defence? Should non-experts on _both_ sides not be used to support their respective causes? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/36 "2013-04-18T15:12:29Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Are you also against gun owners speaking to Congress about their need for self-defence? Should non-experts on _both_ sides not be used to support their respective causes? If said gun owner had just been involved in an act of self-defense, that would be an apt analogy. Just your everyday man off the street? Not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/37 "2013-04-18T15:13:50Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If said gun owner had just been involved in an act of self-defense, that would be an apt analogy. Just your everyday man off the street? Not so much. Same thing for people who had just lost friends and/or relatives, or were victims themselves, right? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/38 "2013-04-18T15:16:26Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I know you posted this before the actual quote was posted, but do you now see that he was talking to Obama, not the parents? If Rand has to call some people props, why can’t Obama be a prop for the families? Why are the families mindless objects in Rand Paul’s pathetic fact-less view? Why isn’t Rand Paul the one putting on a performance for the NRA and Tea Partiers? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/39 "2013-04-18T15:21:19Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > If Rand has to call some people props, why can’t Obama be a prop for the families? Why are the families mindless objects in Rand Paul’s pathetic fact-less view? Why isn’t Rand Paul the one putting on a performance for the NRA and Tea Partiers? He did not say they are “mindless objects”, he said they are being used as s such. In this instance. By Obama. And since Obama was not personally affected by this, he doesn’t qualify. I don’t really care for Rand Paul much. He’s kind of a kooky, not so smart mini-me of his dad. The best thing about him is that he causes the heads of so many people around here to asplode. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2013, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/40 "2013-04-18T15:54:00Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > The Newtown shooting represents neither; the killer is dead. This is exactly the sort of situation that allows for leisurely debate and cool reflection. > > The popular call for senseless action must be resisted, and one way to achieve that is, in cases with no immediate threat, to take time to study the issues before acting. Another way, as was referenced above, is to freeze out the most radical and dogmatic voices from the debate and listen to the moderates. How many mass random shootings since Columbine where the attackers were suicidal or mad, do we need to follow with leisurely debate and cool reflection. You are advocating giving the advantage to the emotional gun rights lobby while defusing the emotions of survivors and relatives of gun violence. Are you saying gun rights folks are the most reasonable and rational advocates in this eternal debate? By the time the emotions from last December die down, then another incident happens and the gun lobby talking points will come at us again. “We need to pause for more leisurely debate.” Bury your kid and loved one, and get back to us in a year or two, when you’ve come to your senses and can see why some Americans must have their lethal mass killing firearms more than you need to spend your life with a loved one that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003.md?page=3)