Oh noes; we can’t talk about gun control so soon after another massacre! It’s unseemly. It’s disrespectful to the victims. It’s too hard.
Tell me this: why isn’t it “too hard” and “unseemly” to talk to a patient who’s just had a heart attack about losing weight, increasing his activity level, and smoking cessation? Because it’s not. On the contrary, it’s a well known window of opportunity when motivation for change is, momentarily, peaking. Seize it or lose it.
Too soon, they say; too soon. Well then, when?
Not now, they say. Not now.
The real answer, I fear, is that they want to wait until the emotion dissipates, tempers cool, and the national attention has moved back to (or over) the fiscal cliff. Just long enough for people to forget just enough of how they felt that day when yet more innocents were blown away so as to effectively change nothing.
That’s what they really want.
“The only problem with gun laws in this country is that there are too many of them”, they cry. Lax, piecemeal enforcement enhances the illusion that “all we have to do is enforce the laws we have” and everything will be fine.
“We need better mental health care.” Yes, we do. But we also need to get the guns away from the mentally ill. Talk about your false dichotomies.
To everyone taking umbrage at the label of “terrorist”, here is my simple challenge:
- Do you support a ban on the sale of high capacity magazines?
- How about a ban on hollow-point bullets?
- What about banning fully automatic weapons (only useful for killing people or to really crappy marksmen and hunters)?
If so, wonderful, we’re all on the same page. If not, let’s look at what you really want.
You want more guns. You want enough people to be packing so that no one will dare mess with anyone else. In essence, you want people to be afraid.
What the hell do you think is meant by the word “terrorism“?
Congratulations. You’ve succeeded.