It makes the violence rather less effective, though.
Prohibiting straight razors in a kindergarten class doesn’t make 5 year old kids more dexterous or self aware, it just limits the damage they can do, given their limitations.
At this point I can’t imagine what could possibly happen that would make people who think there isn’t a problem wake the fuck up. Come up with the most outrageous scenario you can, like someone shooting up an elementry school, and it has already happened, again and again and again.
“Should we conclude that the very concept of the public sphere is a piece of bourgeois masculinist ideology, so thoroughly compromised that it can shed no genuinely critical light on the limits of actually existing democracy? Or, should we conclude, rather, that the public sphere was a good idea that unfortunately was not realized in practice but that retains some emancipatory force? In short, is the idea of the public sphere an instrument of domination or a utopian ideal? Well, perhaps both. But actually neither.” cite
@Babale just above. Thanks for the reminder, I’d meant to respond to that post a few hours ago but got sidetracked …
IMO …
Apathy already won about 25 years ago.
These sort of events will continue unabated and only get worse until after the revolution / civil war / constitutional convention / break-up, or whatever it is that totally upsets the US government plus society’s apple cart.
This is a wicked problem for the USA. As an outsider, you see it as so obvious and easy. From our POV it is impossibly difficult.
[Rest deleted as not IMHO-apropriate]
Do you think that Americans might be jaded to random death? “Overall, the United States receives more high-impact extreme weather incidents than any other country in the world.[226]” cite
I would think that some deaths, like victims of school shootings, would (or should) be considered something we can control and mitigate.
This would be the same pro-life movement that recently won a massive legal victory that completely shifted the way the Constitution is interpreted, destroying a long-held individual right? That’s the group that previously employed this tactic?
I would ascribe that more to the inherent constitutional weakness of Roe v. Wade, which commentators had been pointing out for years, than a groundswell of newly minted activists who were swayed by the visual ugliness of abortion.
Maybe, but it sounds like it wouldn’t hurt to try it.
Yeah, Columbine was the event that in any sane nation would have resulted in comprehensive gun reform. Instead the gun nuts have only dug in deeper with each successive shooting.
NOTHING will be so horrifying that these people wake up.
I doubt it. It’s not like America was apathetic or sluggish reacting to 9/11.
It’s just that a significant minority of the population (with outsized political clout) values access to firearms signifcantly more than they value human lives.
And these people have a significant portion of their identity wrapped up in gun ownership, so when you present them with factual statistics about the wholesale slaughter that US gun laws allow, they deflect and accuse you of being a racist for comparing the US to other wealthy nations, or that the real problem is gangs or missing fathers or mental health issues.
Frankly, I’m pretty fucking sick of it, and plan to continue calling out slaughter-enablers when they rear their ugly heads. Letting murder appologists spew their lies unchecked is how we ended up here to begin with.
Yeah, but 9/11 allowed us to vent our anger towards “THEM” instead of acknowledging any shortcoming on our part.
46k gun deaths in 2022 including 650 mass shooting deaths. Compared to some 3k deaths on 9/11?
Given this, do you think strict gun control (e.g. like in Australia, Europe, Canada, Japan or NZ) would be possible in the US given our gun-ownership identity? Would this approach have the same results that it did in Australia, Europe, Canada, Japan or NZ?
Exactly - 9/11 was an excuse to do what we already wanted to do, while addressing the ongoing wholesale slaughter of Americans by Americans would take effort.
It would be more DIFFICULT here, just like addressing white supremacist culture is difficult. Doesn’t mean it isn’t worthwhile, considering the staggering human cost of ignoring the issue.
There is the problem of “The Embarrassing Second Amendment”, which enshrines gun ownership at the root level of our entire legal system, and which by design would require an abiding supermajority to overturn. Short of voiding three Supreme Court decisions and returning to a situation which Cecil described as the Second Amendment being “interpreted out of existence”, you’d have better luck trying to reinstate Prohibition.
Right, thank you @Lumpy- I forgot about the other major bit of murder apologist propaganda: “Good golly, we’d LOVE to put a stop to the wholesale slaughter of American children, but the Second Amendment, straight from God’s lips, prevents us from doing so”.
Sometimes they just skip the nonsense and get one of these bumper stickers:
Actually, there’s a premise for a bumper sticker or TV ad: show the terrible carnage that follows one of these school shootings, overlay grandiose patriotic music, and superimpose the text SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
It’s the same problem. Americas gun culture is deeply entwined with America’s racism, look how often in these gun debates posters dismiss “gangland” shootings as not really a problem; the subtext is that dead black people don’t count. Black people getting killed is a feature of our gun laws to the gun enthusiast.
Are you proposing that we simply collectively agree to ignore a provision of the constitution and the S.C. rulings about it? I did not say that the Second Amendment is either right or wrong but it does exist. If the American people want to repudiate firearms, get them to vote in legislators who will enact a formal amendment; the Second isn’t engraved in stone for all eternity, but one is required to prove that that overwhelming majority really is there.
It truly staggers me that you are the same person who posted this:
To me, it seems like arbitrarily declaring that the whole “well regulated militia” bit simply doesn’t exist is a hell of a lot more “inherentily constitutionally weak” than recognizing the right to privacy. But your mileage may vary.
This is why I don’t buy the 2nd Amendment argument, incidentally. It’s transparently obvious that rigid adherence to the text only applies when it’s convenient. So “Shall not be infringed” is the Word of God while “well regulated militia” is communist propaganda.
This being IMHO, I have stopped short a time or three on posting the rest of my thoughts.
For me at least, this thread has now completed its mission. Adios amigos!