This is sparked by an argument re guns on last week’s episode of West Wing between President Bartlett and Vice President Hoines. (I don’t think describing the argument constitutes a spoiler.) Re pvt ownership of guns, permitting concealed carry, and “shall issue” laws: Bartlett’s opposed; Hoines disagrees with Bartlett.
In the show, some idiot in Texas had tried to shoot his girlfriend, in a Baptist Church, during services. A bystander tried to shoot the shooter. The bystander missed the shooter and killed a little girl. Hoines says something like, “you (anti-gun people) love it when one of these incidents happens!” Bartlett was very offended at being accused of being pleased that a little girl was killed.
But was Hoines really wrong?
I don’t for a minute think that the pro-gun control people are actually glad when they hear about a gun tragedy – but they are very ready to capitolize on such events, in a “see, I told you so” way. They seize on the tragedy and say, “see, that’s what happens if people are allowed to own guns”. Their message seems to be that the only possible way to prevent these tragedies is to outlaw the pvt ownership of guns.
IMO, outlawing guns would not prevent these tragedies, nor would “common sence” gun laws (whatever they are), as people wanting to own guns would not obey any law that sought to prevent them from doing so. Yet we seem to be so locked into this longstanding national gun argument that we are not able to consider any other steps that could be taken to reduce the number of gun tragedies.
The anti-gun people seem to have decided that outlawing guns is not only the best solution to problems with guns, but the only solution. Nothing else that might prevent any of these incidents can even be considered. Is it any wonder that the pro-gun people have begun to think that the antis actually welcome these events, and are seeking to prevent any measures being enacted to prevent them (other then the one measure they want)?
The gun debate is the most obvious situation where people are making a regular practice of capitolizing on tragic events to promote an agenda or cause. I’ve also seen this happening in the wake of 09/11/01. IMO, some in government were quick to seize on the terrorist attack as an excuse to pass measures they had long wanted; mesures to give themselves more policing power. IMO, at least one of the new (so called) safty regulations the airlines are putting into effect is something they’ve long wanted to do for reasons having nothing to do with safety: reducing the number of carryon bags passengers can bring aboard.
Bottom line: people are set on what they want to do. When a crisis or tradedy occurs, they think in terms of “how can I use this to get what I want?” This gets in the way of actually solving the crisis or preventing future tragedies.