# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/121 "2013-04-21T14:51:10Z")
Please note that I am not ‘repeating tripe’ as one poster has charged that is all I do. This is from a recently released report that I have not mentioned prior to this: > [@](#): > > Do you have any proof they were “bought off” or are you just spouting off at the mouth? -WillFarnaby 04-18-2013 09:07 PM 108p0907 Here’s one report of how much money we are talking about: > [@](#): > > “Gun lobby funded all but three senators who voted against background checks” By Dan Roberts, The Guardian Thursday, April 18, 2013 20:19 EDT > > All but three of the 45 senators who torpedoed gun control measures in Congress on Wednesday have received money from firearms lobbyists, according to new analysis by the Guardian and the Sunlight Foundation. > > Yet campaign disclosures show the group were also direct recipients of gun cash. The National Rifle Association alone has given $800,000 to 40 of the senators who voted against the amendment since 1990, much of it in the run-up to the last election, according to Sunlight Foundation figures. And in Rand Paul’s case, he and his father have shown clever ways to channel ‘money’ in support of their politics. > [@](#): > > [http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/04/gun-rights-group-with-close-ties-to.html](http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/04/gun-rights-group-with-close-ties-to.html) > > A group that fashions itself the conservative alternative to the National Rifle Association and uses Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s name and image in its fundraising appeals has longstanding ties to the Paul family, according to various corporate and campaign filings. > > The National Association for Gun Rights has been ruffling GOP feathers by targeting two conservatives, House Majority Whip Eric Cantor and Rep. Scott Rigell, both Virginia Republicans, with ads accusing them of being soft on the issue. The ads feature images of them morphing into Barack Obama as the narrator accuses both of trying to assist the president in implementing strict gun control policies. IF interested read more of the ‘open secrets’ link. This is real interesting. insight into how money works in Washington and Senators like Rand Paul can claim no connection to it. ---
**Author:** ![Blkshp](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blkshp/32/7135_2.png) [@Blkshp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blkshp)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/122 "2013-04-21T16:58:18Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I remember quite a few people years ago being disgusted by the way President George W. Bush used the families of 911 victims in photo ops to push for bills and policies he supported(including at least one teenage girl he used in re-election ads) and who accused him of using them as “props”. > > I’m surprised to find out that NFBW thinks we were all assholes insulting ereaving families. There is a Political Playbook and the professionals on all sides use it. Partisans somehow believe that a play is fair when executed by their team and cheating when employed by the opposition. Whatever the specific issue, to me, whole business looks like no more than a bitter college rivalry in which the fans are invested equally in their own righteousness and their rival’s nefariousness - regardless of the fact that both institutions and their tactics are essentially identical. Ironically, the institutions have far more in common as “Institutions” than separates them in philosophy. And the Institution is really the thing because that’s where the payoff is for the practioners of politics - elected or otherwise. Consequently the payoff for the pros anymore is merely feeding the rivalry. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/123 "2013-04-21T18:20:41Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > Sorry, “NFBW”? I was referring to NotfooledbyW. If he was outraged, outraged by Rand Paul accusing Barack Obama for using the Sandy Hook families as “props” to advance his agenda and felt that in doing so Paul was insulting the parents of the Sandy Hook children, then NFBW should have also been equally offended by people like me criticizing George Bush for using 911 families to advance the Patriot Act and to justify the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as Bush did throughout his Presidency, regularly having them appear in photo-ops and even campaign commercials. > [@](#): > > **Blkshp** > There is a Political Playbook and the professionals on all sides use it. Partisans somehow believe that a play is fair when executed by their team and cheating when employed by the opposition. Whatever the specific issue, to me, whole business looks like no more than a bitter college rivalry in which the fans are invested equally in their own righteousness and their rival’s nefariousness - regardless of the fact that both institutions and their tactics are essentially identical. > > Ironically, the institutions have far more in common as “Institutions” than separates them in philosophy. And the Institution is really the thing because that’s where the payoff is for the practioners of politics - elected or otherwise. Consequently the payoff for the pros anymore is merely feeding the rivalry. Well put. > [@](#): > > **NotfooledbyW** > And If you could stay and defend your comparison to the 9/11/01 attacks for the debate we are having today; please do so. Of course, I made no such comparison. I merely pointed out that people like myself criticized George Bush for using 911 families in photo-ops and ceremonies to advance support for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. He even used 911 families as props in campaign commercials like this one entitled “Ashley’s story”. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWA052-Bl48&list=UUKd\_NV2tZLUDm-889Xt9HmQ&index=1](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWA052-Bl48&list=UUKd_NV2tZLUDm-889Xt9HmQ&index=1) Now, presumably, unless you’re massively intellectually inconsistent, you’ll think my referring to Ashley and her dad as “props” was both reprehensible, proved I’m an asshole, and was grossly insulting to her and her father. I certainly invite everyone to watch the ad and see for yourself that both Republicans and Democrats use the same tactics when it comes to the use of families. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/124 "2013-04-21T19:00:22Z")
> [@](#): > > All but three of the 45 senators who torpedoed gun control measures in Congress on Wednesday have received money from firearms lobbyists, according to new analysis by the Guardian and the Sunlight Foundation. > > Yet campaign disclosures show the group were also direct recipients of gun cash. The National Rifle Association alone has given $800,000 to 40 of the senators who voted against the amendment since 1990, much of it in the run-up to the last election, according to Sunlight Foundation figures. So 40 senators have each received an average of $20,000 over the last 22 years? That is less that $7,000 per (six year term) election. And you think that with campaigns running well over $4,000,000 each, you can buy a senator for $7,000? I think that the NRA wields disproportionate influence in this country, but the quoted text is certainly not evidence of any such thing. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/125 "2013-04-21T19:18:35Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > [Now, presumably, unless you’re massively intellectually inconsistent, you’ll think my referring to Ashley and her dad as “props” was both reprehensible, proved I’m an asshole, and was grossly insulting to her and her father. You need to go back and read my comments. I have been saying the use of people such for props is absolutely ok unless they are forced to be props against their will. I have challenged any of you to find a Sandy Hook Parent ‘prop’ that was with the President or petitioned Congress Members against their will or because of some other form of insidious coercion. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/126 "2013-04-21T19:27:26Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You need to go back and read my comments. I have been saying the use of people such for props is absolutely ok unless they are forced to be props against their will. > > I have challenged any of you to find a Sandy Hook Parent ‘prop’ that was with the President or petitioned Congress Members against their will or because of some other form of insidious coercion. So then yes, you do think it was obnoxious for people, such as Michael Moore, to attack George W. Bush for using 911 families as “props” in his re-election campaign against John Kerry? Stop beating around the Bush, putting up massive walls of text and just say so. ---
**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 21, 2013, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/127 "2013-04-21T23:54:25Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Do you think Rand Paul (or like-minded people) have a concern with the NRA’s (past?) practice of printing anecdotes in its magazine about people who use firearms in self-defense to avoid attempted robberies, rapes, assaults, or murders? Rand Paul? I have no idea. Like-minded people? Probably not. The NRA magazine is for NRA members; it’s not intended to serve the general debate. Similarly, I highly doubt many people have a problem with the Newtown families writing books or blogs, contributing to a Brady Campaign magazine, or what-have-you, or desiring to use Presidential or Congressional access as a platform. However, it is quite reasonable to hold the President and Congress to a standard that precludes such purely emotional appeals. As our elected representatives, they have a duty to weigh facts, seek compromises, and lead without passion or prejudice, rather than serve as cheerleaders for one or another “side” in a highly contentious public debate. > [@tomndebb](#): > > So 40 senators have each received an average of $20,000 over the last 22 years? That is less that $7,000 per (six year term) election. > And you think that with campaigns running well over $4,000,000 each, you can buy a senator for $7,000? Furthermore, it’s not exactly scandalous that the NRA contributes to the re-election of pro-gun Congressmen. Whom else should they try to keep in office, if not people who agree with their basic views? ---
**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 22, 2013, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/128 "2013-04-22T00:03:56Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And in Rand Paul’s case, he and his father have shown clever ways to channel ‘money’ in support of their politics. > IF interested read more of the ‘open secrets’ link. This is real interesting. insight into how money works in Washington and Senators like Rand Paul can claim no connection to it. Paul can’t win here (unless he adopts all of your views); if he works closely with the NRA, he’s a paid stooge. If he supports (perhaps, your cite was hardly conclusive) an independent gun-rights group, he’s some sort of shadowy, monied power broker. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/129 "2013-04-22T02:04:56Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > So 40 senators have each received an average of $20,000 over the last 22 years? That is less that $7,000 per (six year term) election. > And you think that with campaigns running well over $4,000,000 each, you can buy a senator for $7,000? > > I think that the NRA wields disproportionate influence in this country, but the quoted text is certainly not evidence of any such thing. How much more is that than what they got from parents of kids gunned down in random killing sprees? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/130 "2013-04-22T02:10:11Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > So then yes, you do think it was obnoxious for people, such as Michael Moore, to attack George W. Bush for using 911 families as “props” in his re-election campaign against John Kerry? > > Stop beating around the Bush, putting up massive walls of text and just say so. So you can’t find a Sandy Hook parent who has accused President Obama of ‘using’ them can you. If Bush used willing props then Michael Moore is wrong. I don’t think he’s an asshole for being wrong. Again where did you get that I would hold such a viewpoint? If Bush used human props either against their will then that is not what we are discussing in the present moment. If Bush used props who wanted to be props more power to him and them. I have no problem with it. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/131 "2013-04-22T02:16:41Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Rand Paul? I have no idea. > > Like-minded people? Probably not. The NRA magazine is for NRA members; it’s not intended to serve the general debate. Similarly, I highly doubt many people have a problem with the Newtown families writing books or blogs, contributing to a Brady Campaign magazine, or what-have-you, or desiring to use Presidential or Congressional access as a platform. > > However, it is quite reasonable to hold the President and Congress to a standard that precludes such purely emotional appeals. As our elected representatives, they have a duty to weigh facts, seek compromises, and lead without passion or prejudice, rather than serve as cheerleaders for one or another “side” in a highly contentious public debate. > > Furthermore, it’s not exactly scandalous that the NRA contributes to the re-election of pro-gun Congressmen. Whom else should they try to keep in office, if not people who agree with their basic views? The NRA has success because it appeals to raw emotion from gun owners. I have been making the point that both sides are operation on high emotions. The NRA’s favorite emotion is engendering ‘fear’ Fear that those who want 'reasonable gun regualations of any kind are hell bent ultimately on taking every last firearem out of every single gun owner in the country’s dead cold hand. The NRA and other anti-regulation Groups have assaulted the airwaves with that scare tactic and all we hear is that its the Sandy Hook Parents and people like Gabby Giffords are operation purely on emotion. I never said NRA contributions to politicians is scandalous. It is not. I merely pointed out the fact of how much they have paid the 40 Senators that, ‘as a minority’ in the Senate, blocked a law that had a majority of Senators vote for it. The NRA gets good results for the money they spend. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/132 "2013-04-22T02:26:48Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > So you can’t find a Sandy Hook parent who has accused President Obama of ‘using’ them can you. That’s an exceptionally stupid comment. I made no judgement about Obama’s use of the Sandy Hook parents. I recommend you work on your reading comprehension skills. > [@](#): > > If Bush used willing props then Michael Moore is wrong. I don’t think he’s an asshole for being wrong. I have to admit that I nearly pissed myself laughing at this statement. It’s such a complete 180 from your position on Rand Paul. > [@](#): > > Hill and on TV? > > Who does Rand Paul think he is? > > If a ‘prop’ is “an object used during a performance” then Obama is using these ‘non-feeling, senseless objects’ in a political performance and nothing more. > > Is it that these grieving parents are on the political stage ‘only’ because Obama put them there - as ‘objects’? > > Are they dupes? Are they fools? Are they supposed to bow to Rand Paul’s cold-hearted and cruel view of the world that some Americans have more right to buying and selling guns without a back-ground check and thirty round clips more than a six year old kid has a right to life? > > The more we hear from Rand Paul, the more most Americans should not be able to bear him. > > No thanks Kentucky. Is this the best you can do? > > **What a cold insensitive human being to utter such a thing**. Anyway, it’s good to know that you consider Michael Moore “a cold insensitive human being” but don’t think he’s an asshole. It strikes me as absurdly hypocritical, but that’s just me. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/133 "2013-04-22T09:12:27Z")
IBN Warraq cited this statement: > [@](#): > > If Bush used willing props then Michael Moore is wrong. I don’t think he’s an asshole for being wrong. -Ntfldbw 111p1010 And then launched the following personal attack and mischaracteraization of what I have been writing on this topic: > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > That’s an exceptionally stupid comment. > > I have to admit that I nearly pissed myself laughing at this statement. It’s such a complete 180 from your position on Rand Paul. I had asked prior to this attack that Ibn Warraq cite the source that I have committed a 180 on victims of tragedies as ‘props’ and or being used as props by the President. I have made no 180 on this. If Ibn Warraq has an example of me heading south in one post and then north on another, it would be credible of him/her to produce it. I’ll post some of my comments on ‘props’ just to get the process rolling: > [@](#): > > Why are the parents props? Why isn’t the President and the White House the props? -Ntfldbw #017 04-18-2013 08:08 AM 108a0808 > [@](#): > > Here’s an ‘apt’ debate topic or two: > > Why is it not an apt description to describe the President of the United States and all the trappings that goes with it as “props” for the parents who want to be seen and heard. > > The President and the slaughtered children’s parents and siblings have been strongly advocating that the Senate allow an up or down vote and then a bill goes to the House for the same thing. So why are these parents ‘least-qualified’ to make such a demand. > > Why would anyone defend the coward politicians in the Senate that will not allow a simple majority vote so they can be placed on record where they stand? > > What kind of expert does one have to be to want a vote on a Bill? -Ntfldbw 04-18-2013 08:27 AM 108a0827 > [@](#): > > I agree with your (TriPolar) 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. –Ntfldbw #020 04-18-2013 08:36 AM 110a0836 > [@](#): > > 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? –Ntfldbw #038 04-18-2013 11:16 AM 108a1116 > [@](#): > > They would have to be mindless objects to be used as mindless objects. I say we get closer to the truth being that this round of mass gun violence has caused the victims parents and others close to the dead and wounded to realize they have stood by silently when it happened to someone else, and now enough is enough. > They found that there is a President now in office who also believes enough is enough. > In this case like minds have come together. > Why don’t you explain why you think the president could not be a prop for the parents? > That shows why Rand Paul is no where’s near being factual with his biased and unreasonable accusation. –Ntfldbw #042 W 04-18-2013 12:09 PM 108p1209 > [@](#): > > It’s quite cold and insensitive to put down gun violence victims’ families as props for expressing the opposing view to his {Rand Paul’s} ideology. They did not give up their right to lobby Congress because they just buried a child. > To call them props is disrespecting their political activism. > I can see that you don’t see it. –Ntfldbw #087 04-18-2013 10:46 PM > [@](#): > > If Rand Paul ‘thinks’ that President Obama ‘used’ these families as props, then Rand Paul must think that they ‘were’ props at some point in time. > **The only justifiable criticism of Obama for ‘using’ them as props should come from the ‘props’ themselves.** I have not heard any of them say they thought they were being “used” as props. Emphasis on the words ‘USED AS’. > **Using people as props to make your case is not at all derogatory, offensive or unethical or dishonorable if the props, in this case - human beings - sincerely want and freely desire to be there.** > {Cite\>} “When I see the father and the mothers and them testifying — and I know they’re coming voluntarily, and they want to come and be part of this debate — but it still saddens me just to see them, and I think that in some cases the president has used them as props. And that disappoints me,”-Rand Paul {\ > That is why it is offensive for Rand Paul to ‘think’ that Obama has ‘used’ these grieving families as props. It is offensive to the families because there is nothing ‘disappointing’ about the victims family’s being on the stage with their President if they ‘want’ to be there and agree with the President’s position on the issue that matters dear to them… > > It is plain by his own words that Rand Paul will disparage the mothers and fathers of slain six year old children if there is a pot shot at Obama to be had. > > There was no reason to bring up ‘used as props’ in his comments about his views on gun legislation and on how he is saddened when he see these family’s testifying and lobbying on Capitol Hill. –Ntfldbw #099 04-19-2013 09:00 PM 109p0900 ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/134 "2013-04-22T12:51:31Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I’ll post some of my comments on ‘props’ just to get the process rolling: FYI, your posts are extremely disjointed and difficult to read when you present them that way. Maybe it’s just me… ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/135 "2013-04-22T12:58:50Z")
If we shouldn’t discuss gun control in the wake of a tragedy involving guns, then when _should_ we discuss it? We’re _always_ in the wake of a tragedy involving guns-- They’re just too common. Which is, after all, the problem we’re trying to solve. So, the bigger the problem, the more taboo discussion of it is? ---
**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 22, 2013, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/136 "2013-04-22T13:14:24Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The NRA has success because it appeals to raw emotion from gun owners. I have been making the point that both sides are operation on high emotions. The NRA’s favorite emotion is engendering ‘fear’ Fear that those who want 'reasonable gun regualations of any kind are hell bent ultimately on taking every last firearem out of every single gun owner in the country’s dead cold hand. > > The NRA and other anti-regulation Groups have assaulted the airwaves with that scare tactic and all we hear is that its the Sandy Hook Parents and people like Gabby Giffords are operation purely on emotion. > > I never said NRA contributions to politicians is scandalous. It is not. I merely pointed out the fact of how much they have paid the 40 Senators that, ‘as a minority’ in the Senate, blocked a law that had a majority of Senators vote for it. > > The NRA gets good results for the money they spend. I’ve lost track of your point; you started out bashing Rand Paul for being cold and heartless and all that, now you’re saying that both the NRA and Obama used emotional appeals, which has little or nothing to do with Rand Paul, and doesn’t preclude criticizing _anyone_ who uses such tactics. Can you show where Rand Paul has done something similar to what he criticized Obama for? > [@Chronos](#): > > If we shouldn’t discuss gun control in the wake of a tragedy involving guns, then when should we discuss it? We’re always in the wake of a tragedy involving guns-- They’re just too common. Which is, after all, the problem we’re trying to solve. So, the bigger the problem, the more taboo discussion of it is? The issue isn’t whether to discuss gun control on the wage of a tragedy, it’s how. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/137 "2013-04-22T13:23:08Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > If we shouldn’t discuss gun control in the wake of a tragedy involving guns, then when _should_ we discuss it? We’re _always_ in the wake of a tragedy involving guns-- They’re just too common. Which is, after all, the problem we’re trying to solve. So, the bigger the problem, the more taboo discussion of it is? You exaggerate how often notable gun related violence occurs. For instance, what can you think of between Colombine and Virginia tech? These incidents stand out in your mind but there are actually remarkably few of them, they kill at most a dozen or two people a year. They’re statistical blips. If you were talking about random background gun violence, your point would have merit - but our society doesn’t seem to care about that. People don’t get worked up into hysterics because some gangs shot each other up or some random dude did a murder/suicide on his wife or the thousands of other random incidents of gun violence. Which is actually the point, in response to your question. If society doesn’t give a shit about the 10,000 people a year killed by guns, but suddenly cares deeply about sensational incidents here and there which are the tiniest minority of gun related deaths, then they aren’t evaluating risk and safety rationally, and their responses will not be rational. You can see a microcosm of this in the constant hardon the gun control advocates have for assault weapons bans - anyone with even the tiniest bit of perspective can see that “assault weapons” are an almost irrelevant part of gun crime, and that the actual things the laws do are childishly stupid, but they sure do stir up the emotions. So any attempt to ram through legislation in the wake of a sensational tragedy that has gripped the public is very likely to be an entirely irrational response. So “this isn’t the time to discuss this” is more like “you’re all getting hysterical and screaming that We Must Do Something and proposing all sorts of stupid laws that will not significantly impact public safety and/or will hurt law abiding citizens, when come back bring rational thought” If gun control laws were being proposed that were a rational response to address the significant public safety issues we have while trying to minimize impact on people who are not a threat to public safety, they’d get a much better reception. But what we actually have is gun control advocates lying in wait for some sensational horrible crime to be committed, pouncing on the subsequent hysteria, and then proposing completely stupid laws. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/138 "2013-04-22T14:06:56Z")
For another take on the sentiment expressed by Rand Paul, a talk radio host in Minnesota suggests that the families of Sandy Hook victims should “go to hell.” > [@](#): > > A Minnesota radio host said he would like to tell the families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims to “go to hell” for infringing on his gun rights. > > Bob Davis was discussing those affected by the Newtown, Conn., tragedy during a Friday segment of his show, “Davis & Emmer,” on Twin Cities News Talk AM 1130, according to Minneapolis’ City Pages. The topic focused on how family members of the 26 victims, 20 of whom were between the ages of 6 and 7 years old, have become advocates for gun control. In Davis’ opinion, these Newtown families are infringing on his constitutional rights. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > You exaggerate how often notable gun related violence occurs. For instance, what can you think of between Colombine and Virginia tech? These incidents stand out in your mind but there are actually remarkably few of them, they kill at most a dozen or two people a year. They’re statistical blips. Well, using fairly restrictive criteria, meaning that a minimum of four deaths occurred (other than the shooter) and that the incident was in public, [Mother Jones](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2) documents 14 mass shootings in the 8 years in between those two events, with a total of 159 injured or killed. (I think this is unduly restrictive, since a requirement of four deaths would mean that the bombing in Boston would be excluded from such a list, in terms of the outcome rather than the mechanism of injury.) The fact that gun advocates want to dismiss these people as “statistical blips” is one of the reasons why they react so strongly (as in this thread) when those “statistical blips” have real live people speaking for them posthumously. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/139 "2013-04-22T14:13:18Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Well, using fairly restrictive criteria, meaning that a minimum of four deaths occurred (other than the shooter) and that the incident was in public, [Mother Jones](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2) documents 14 mass shootings in the 8 years in between those two events, with a total of 159 injured or killed. (I think this is unduly restrictive, since a requirement of four deaths would mean that the bombing in Boston would be excluded from such a list, in terms of the outcome rather than the mechanism of injury.) Is it really a restrictive criteria? Would 3 people strike you as a big, splashy mass shooting? Furthermore, we only seem to care about the crazies that kill random innocent people. How many of those incidents were gang turf fights that resulted in the deaths of 4+ career criminals? Even so, 159 injured or killed over 8 years comes out to 20 a year. Yes, a statistical blip. Roughly one fifth of one percent of gun deaths in that period. Do you consider that a significant number that we should tailor our laws around? Edit: I reread that you said _injured_ or killed. So the fatalties are an even smaller percentage of the total gun related fatalities. > [@](#): > > The fact that gun advocates want to dismiss these people as “statistical blips” is one of the reasons why they react so strongly (as in this thread) when those “statistical blips” have real live people speaking for them posthumously. Who’s reacting strongly? Someone called the weeping people making emotional please props. That’s a reaction that can be generated entirely dispassionately. You yourself are essentially again making an appeal to emotions. Yes, they are statistical blips. Well under 1% of the issue of gun violence. I will even go further and say that in a country awash in guns, with limited access to health care and mental health care especially, a country so diverse, the fact that we only see a dozen or two deaths a year from people snapping and going on mass killings is fucking miraculous. We are actually well behaved as a society in this way beyond any reasonable projections I would ever make. I mean, really, look at your link. In a country of 300m+ people with hundreds of millions of guns and for that matter other weapons and the materials to make bombs, we’ve got a dozen. Many years only have one incident. This is utterly remarkable for how minor and insignificant it is. The world should marvel at just how not prone americans are to snapping and killing each other, given the circumstances. I know the intent of the article was supposed to be some sort of walk of shame, but in a weird way - and I know this won’t go over well because it’s something that works rationally but not emotionally - it could actually be a badge of pride. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003/140 "2013-04-22T14:27:21Z")
To expand upon that, I don’t think people truly understand how big the world is in an intuitive way. Not even close, not even within several orders of magnitude. They can only evaluate things on a more personal level. By most standards, the world is as good as its ever been. Crime in the US is way down from 30 years ago, we’re all fabulously rich and well fed. But if you ask people, the majority of people will tell you that things are bad and only getting worse, the sick shit you see in the world today is a sign of the end times, etc. I think that this is a result of sensationalist media. They pick stories about horrible shit and then dwell on them for weeks, gleefully recounting and probing the gorey details, trying to make people afraid and disgusted because people seem to want that. The problem is - if you don’t really understand just how big the world is, and you only understand things on a more personal, small scale level - then all of the stories of these horrible things happening in the world strike you a lot harder than they should. It’s as if all the horrible things that can happen in the world are happening in your own little town because you can’t properly put them in perspective, you can’t realize that while thousands of people committed horrible crimes yesterday, billions of people did not. Which is why these sensationalist stories affect people far more than they should, far more than they’d affect a rational person who tries to keep perspective on the world. A spree shooting or two a year makes people think that our country is unsafe and we’re awash in violence when in reality almost no one is in danger from such a thing and it’s remarkable how little of it we have. It’s also how you end up with people who engage in this grief cycle for the victims of some random event but not for others. We think the 3 deaths in boston are a big deal or the 20 deaths at Sandy Hook, but we’re unaware of all the horrible suffering in the world that’s happened at the same time. Why? Because if we only relate to the story on a personal level, then the media gets to shape our worldview and pick our emotions by choosing which of these stories to show us. Public policy should be made by people who have this perspective, not people who react hysterically to whatever the media tells them to. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rand-paul-say-political-involvement-of-parents-of-gunned-down-kids-is-inappropriate/656003.md?page=8)