Mind explaining how it’s meaningless?
Where he’s explaining his methodology, he sure omits a lot of data. Basically he’s limiting the scope of his results to only shootings where civilians stopped the shooting or police stopped the shooting, eliminating data where the shooter killed himself and eliminating data where the suspect fled the scene and was later apprehended. Uh, yeah do you think the numbers are going to be a little skewed? He started with 93 spree killings and through eliminating all but the incidents that would prove his hypothesis, had a whopping 30 cases. Which proved his hypothesis.
He was quite upfront on why he chose those cases. He was measuring cases that could have continued without intervention, not cases where the damage was done and finished.
It doesn’t matter how they spin it, there won’t be any efforts at all to address gun control.
They’ll say he didn’t call it horrible, so obviously he’s covering something up. He probably had advanced knowledge of the shooting and allowed it to happen.
More seriously, I’m guessing it’ll be a mix of “sure, this was a tragedy but what about all the other tragedies that Obama has been ignoring?” (as Lobohan already provided a link to) and “this reflects the general moral breakdown in American society caused by the liberals.”
I’m sure Obama watched the whole thing play out in the Situation Room, via one of the many drone spy planes flying over America Every minute. And he refused to call the police!
He did say in a nonspecific way that “We’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.” I think we can count on the Tea Party to support this as long as it doesn’t involve any kind of additional restriction or tracking of the sale of guns or any additional federal spending.
I realize that I am not “just about everyone” but I can tell you that prior to yesterday I didn’t really give two shits about gun control, but I am now contacting all of my representatives in Congress via email, snail mail, and phone, to let them know that I support stricter gun control legislation and improved access to mental health care in this country. This has rocketed to my top-5 list of issues I care about and I don’t see that changing any time soon.
So I don’t support the same policies I did before, actually.
As for the Tea Party: “This is due to a failure of morality as a nation,” “We need more prayer in schools,” “We should arm teachers,” and “We should post armed guards at all schools,” are all things I have heard from idiots on Facebook.
Michigan’s House had just voted for a bill that would allow concealed carry in public schools, among other places. In light of the shooting, Gov. Snyder is sitting on it instead of signing it right away. There was an article in the local paper this morning with some reaction from concealed and open carry advocates today.
[
Searching around the web, Rob Harris appears to be a member of the Rattle With Us Tea Party group, and Steve Dulan claims no party affiliation but was a guest speaker at a gun rights rally this spring where the Tea Party were heavily represented.
So, the same line as usual: If some teacher or parent had a gun they would have stopped the guy. The answer to guns in schools is - more guns in schools.
I found this quote interesting:
Funny you say that, sir, as there was a shooting in a shopping mall too, earlier this week. Was that supposed to be a reassuring comment?
Then good for you. Get informed and stay on top of it.
In other words, the same dumb stuff they were saying yesterday.
But they’re open to the idea of addressing this issue via tax cuts.
That article describes two shootings. In the first the gunman ran away unharmed. In the second the gunman was wounded by an armed security guard (who also was a member of the congregation). Since he was armed because he was in a security role I don’t see that as validating the argument that armed civilians that just happen to be present take the initiative to exchange gunfire with someone who opens fire.
Along with cuts to the Department of Education and an increase in school voucher programs.
The tone of your post feels argumentative but your words seem to be agreeing with me. So…thanks, I think.
But how would an armed citizen be any different? The idea is that having someone who is armed confront the gunman and possibly bringing the incident to an end long before the police can respond.
No argument intended. If this does change your views or your priorities on policy, go to it and good luck. But for most people, I don’t think this changes much- and certainly a group on the far right is not going to change its mind just because some children were murdered.
Last week, Republicans and conservatives thought teachers were over-paid union thugs. This wee the think these same losers need to be armed.
One of the teachers was armed. Unfortunately, her gun was used against her.
Republicans and conservatives also think people need ID to vote. I wonder if they will be opposed to ID, education or licensing for owners of deadly weapons.
What? Where did you hear this?
He means the shooter’s mother- although it has since been reported that she was a school employee and not a teacher.