This was from an interview on NPR Weekend Edition with Pastor Eugene Peterson, who was offering advice on what to do (and not to do) for a grieving person. He brought up examples from his own life and ministry.
[At my mother's funeral, this man] put his arm across my shoulders, and he started giving me cliches and talking God talk. And after a few minutes of that, he left. And I said to my daughter Karen: Oh, Karen, I hope I've never done that to anybody. And she said - she was so dear. She says: Oh, daddy, I don't think you'd ever do that. But I had done that. But you learn not to do that when you've been through this a few times.
http://www.npr.org/2012/12/15/
Obama's speech was at an "interfaith" service, so we can expect some spirituality, but I think he really went overboard with the "God talk", obvious parenting advice, and other cliches like "our children are our hearts". To me it's patronizing, which is exactly what Peterson said grieving people don't want to hear. It's of very little comfort when a stranger tells you that the dead "are in a better place now" or we "have to have faith that this is part of a plan." What are you saying, that we shouldn't grieve and be happy instead? That is not empathy, that is lecturing. Or if Obama insists on this course, at least do it powerfully and succinctly like JFK (crescendos delivered in <1 br="br" min="min">
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
Sometime (or too often) Obama speaks like a wimp - too guarded and professorial, which makes him come off as weak and un-authentic (compare this to the fiery Obama of 2004-2008). I really think he should fire his speech writers (and definitely his debate coach). It's not campaign season anymore, he doesn't need to blabber on for 20 min with vague, colorful, but distracting language. Otherwise people tune out. I realize it is was terrible situation for a speech, and it is not an easy task even for a gifted orator. Plus Obama is clearly not a natural like Bill (see how well he handled the OK City tragedy, in just 9 min: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
If I was part of the Newtown community, I would appreciate if he said what he would do to spare other Americans the same pain. Something CONCRETE. A promise, not the other BS he spewed after the last 3 mass shootings during his presidency. Maybe he was heartfelt, but we didn't feel it, and there are no points for effort. I am sure Obama did better meeting solo or in small groups with the victims and local community. But in a nationally televised speech, he has to do better or don't bother at all (since as pastor said, silence is sometime the best thing you can give). After Obama's speech, I don't feel like things are going to get better. I just wonder when he and the Dems will puss-out to the gun lobby, and when the next horrible shooting will be. Obama made me feel cynical, upset, and defeated, whereas JFK and Clinton made me feel energized and hopeful, even if their words are decades old (and we now know about all their personal flaws).
Everyone already knows (apart from the NRA) that the status quo is not good enough. Everyone already knows that protecting our kids is our top priority. Tell us how we're going to get to a better place. The GOP isn't totally wrong; Obama is very thin on details at times. And I'm not talking about a deep dive into policy minutia, research findings, and wonky specifics. There has to be a middle ground between fluff and wonk, and that is where most Americans prefer to communicate and understand. Clinton got that right almost every time, it was uncanny. I respect Bush Sr. for at least having the sack to promise no new taxes, even if he had to break it later. At least he put it out there and the people knew where he stood. Same thing for JFK proclaiming that an American would reach the moon before the decade was out. Maybe he had his doubts, but it helped to quell America's fears about Sputnik. So Mr. no-drama, play-it-safe Obama, can you just say that it's going to be harder for deranged shooters to get their hands on weapons and commit massacres? Maybe attacks won't go down to zero, but please reassure us that things will improve. You said we have to change, and you are Mr. Change, so tell is WHAT exactly is going to change, dammit!
What's it going to be, Barack? What do you want your second term to be remembered for? You somewhat mocked the people who were unsure about you in 2008 as "clinging to their guns" - now you won't even say the word (it's not Voldemort!). Sometime a leader has to tell the people the hard things they may not want to hear, but need to. He even said tonight, good parents can't hope to shield their kids from the world forever. That would be doing them a disservice. Wasn't he all about doing the unpopular thing as long as it was the right thing? Didn't his former chief of staff Emmanuel admonish to never let a crisis go to waste? And he may be surprised that there is more latent support for stronger gun restrictions than the Beltway pollsters suggest.
---------
The excuse-for-inaction machine has already started to rev up in DC:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/
Jay Carney: "I think we all recognize that this is a complex problem and there are obstacles to taking action coming from a variety of places... no single piece of legislation, no single action will fully address the problem. So I don't have a specific agenda to announce to you today."
---------
Critics say the Obama administration hasn't done enough to combat gun violence. Carney responded to that criticism Monday by saying the president has supported an assault weapons ban and that the administration has "taken steps" to improve background checks, "but as you heard the president say last night, we all need to do more."
When pressed by ABC News' Jake Tapper to name specific legislation pushed by the administration, Carney cited "actions" on background checks and again stressed that more action needs to be taken.
Actually the Obama admin. has done nothing of substance. The only notable change was in the other direction - guns are now permitted in national parks.
----------
Following the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., in July, several Democratic lawmakers pushed legislation to outlaw the sale of high-capacity gun magazines. At the time, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was one of the voices cautioning against wading into gun control during an election year. "It's a bad time to embrace a new subject," Feinstein said.
Only FOUR members of Congress pushed for renewed discussion on gun legislation after Aurora. And Feinstein, who was known as one of the strongest gun control advocates in the Senate, basically told them to shut it down until after the election. Well the election is over now and we have another shooting. Now what?
-------
But at least some NRA A-rated Congressmen (Manchin, Warner) are now joining the call for an assault weapons ban ("No hunter I know uses an assault rifle").
Some good comments in the discussion below. Sadly, it is pretty much the same discussion as the one post-Aurora. The pro-gun guy rehashed the same "solution" - armed school staff could have stopped the shooter. But the gun control researcher believes that America is different now. A shot Congresswoman and a shot-up movie theater wasn't enough it seems, but now a pile of slaughtered children may have actually woken the nation up. He predicts this could be the beginning of the end for the NRA, as there is a trend of more NRA-funded politicians losing their elections. Bloomberg has proposed starting a well funded opposing advocacy-lobbying org to directly challenge the NRA. Some gun-owning conservatives (who also want more gun restrictions) called in and they said they are tired of having the NRA be the blanket face and voice of all US gun owners. That is like the Tea Party speaking for all Republicans. Very true. Like how the Tea Party really just represents extreme libertarian pro-business interests, the NRA really just represents the gun industry, and indirectly others who benefit from loose guns, like criminals.
An Australian called in and commented on his nation's ban on many types of guns. He said that Auzzies aren't lamenting their "loss of freedom" to possess certain guns, but instead are thankful that they have the freedom to walk in the street without much fear of getting shot.
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/
----------
http://www.tnr.com/blog/
Cohn makes the argument that the politics of gun control have changed. It used to be that Democrats needed at least some percentage of rural conservative voters in Ohio, Virginia etc to win the presidency - Clinton got them, Gore didn't. But over the last few elections those folks have gone entirely towards Republicans, and Democrats have won anyways. The basic argument is that rural gun-lovers are going to vote Republican no matter what, and they're going to lose. So there's no point trying to pretend you care about them, especially if ignoring them allows you to win over real swing voters who prefer fewer guns and fewer massacres.
----------
Thx, J. Yeah, the modern Dems seem predisposed to at least try to reassure voters that they respect the 2nd Amendment and don't want to confiscate all types of guns (just as they feel the need to reassure America that they will be tough on terrorism and rein in spending). I guess it's a knee-jerk to demonstrate that they aren't pansy pinkos. But yeah, it seems we are past the days of Kerry getting a photo-op while hunting to woo rural independent voters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
It seems the Dems can win elections without this segment in their corner, but what about passing meaningful legislation? They may not even be able to keep their own tent in line on this one, much less persuade many Republicans. I can see a lot of the GOP speaking out about gun control (they are probably rightfully outraged and it's also conveniently the political thing to do), but when it comes down to an actual vote, they could cite some technicality to vote no. Though I think a lot of politicians are wary that if they oppose even a toothless, ceremonial gun bill in the wake of Newtown, they would look like heartless bastards with 2014 not far away. Getting 60 senators could be tough, especially since the gun lobby may rightfully realize that this is an existential moment for them and go all-out.
I know I have been contradicting myself regarding how powerful the gun lobby actually is, and how pro-gun Congress actually is, because the truth is I have no idea. Like with health care, the problem with the gun issue is that conservatives always pivot to the personal freedoms, Constitutional rights, and gov't oppression stuff. "No one wants more mass shootings, but having the bloated federal bureaucracy regulating our guns is not the answer. The people and the states can make their own firearms decisions." They justify doing nothing as preventing bad legislation.
It is also possible that we are in the heat of the moment now, but passionate interest in gun control will wane with the holiday shutdown and fiscal cliff looming (not to mention NFL playoffs and Oscars). A massacre of kids is a major downer, and I don't think the MSM will be covering it heavily after Xmas, especially because the "villain" is already dead (no periodic court appearances and criminal profiles like with other shooters). The pro-gun camp may be counting on this, so they are just biding their time until America naturally forgets? Sorry for the cynicism.
----------
http://ktla.com/2012/12/17/
http://science.howstuffworks.
Hope it passes, but it's not retroactive. Sadly, the AR-15 is one of the top 5 most popular gun models in the US, if not the most. This is shocking to me considering a base weapon is like $1,000, vs. a decent hunting rifle, shotgun, or revolver for $300. Also the AR-15 is not exactly compact to transport and store securely, and cleaning it must be a bear. An ATF agent on NPR tonight said that he predicts AR-15 sales to spike this holiday season, even though Lanza used one to massacre kids. There will be worries about a possible ban, it is a very "cool" looking weapon now with more notoriety, and people will justify it by claiming they are owning one to stop any future Lanzas. Some people are taking notice though, as Wal-Mart has now pulled the AR-15 from its website (you can't buy it online but they show you the stores where it's legally available).
After the first assault ban expired in the 2000's, there was a flood of such guns into the country. So even if we put up a new ban now, how do we deal with the many in circulation?
Our ground wars are winding down and it's getting harder to legally arm overseas warlords, so the death dealers need US consumers to pick up the slack.
PS - Wal-mart's role in the US gun culture ("Save money, kill better"): http://www.theatlanticwire.
You can even put rifles on your wedding registry:
http://www.walmart.com/browse/
You'll remember in "Bowling for Columbine" how Moore et al. got K-Mart to stop selling ammo (they didn't sell guns at the time)... no such luck for the world's biggest retailer.
-----------
Yep, anecdotally AR and overall gun sales are spiking now. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/
But some major investors are closing their positions in the (highly profitable) gun industry, such as the CA Teacher's pension fund (understandable) and Cerberus private equity (the owner's father lives in Newtown). Could the gun industry be the new black mark industry like tobacco?
What the foreign press is saying about us after Newtown: http://news.yahoo.com/
An interesting discussion of assault weapons: http://www.npr.org/2012/12/20/
- The guest (Tom Diaz) said that we have made way more significant legal changes, spent way more on research & countermeasures, and fundamentally changed our society (and other societies) in response to terrorism (namely 9/11) than we have for gun-related civilian violence - even though the death toll from terrorism is tiny vs. gun violence. I can understand that terrorist attacks are often large and traumatic vs. the "slow bleed" of (generally unreported in the media) daily gun violence. But mass shootings of kids with military rifles may change perceptions.
- M touched on this already, but the original assault weapons ban wording was so weird with a bunch of irrelevant restrictions on pistol grips, bayonet mounts, etc. Ironically, this helped companies like Bushmaster rise in the 1990's because they redesigned the M-16 into a simplified model that met all the assault weapons ban requirements. So basically you had the same potent weapon that was now legal. Assault rifle designs have been around for decades, so developing nations started to pump out clones at bargain prices. When our ban was lifted in 2004, these cheap weapons started to flood the US and elsewhere.
- There is a recent marketing push in the gun industry to equip US civilians with "military looking" weapons. In some cases, they are the exact same weapon with the same damage potential (e.g. a .50 cal sniper rifle with armor-piercing rounds). Gun makers don't make high margins on military contracts, due to the Pentagon's bargaining power and maybe some legal issues. The civilian market is larger and a lot more lucrative. So gun makers developed a strategy to win military contracts with a low-ball offer, and then their weapon would gain a lot of publicity, prestige, and visibility (movies, ads, video games, news footage, etc.). This would be free marketing and whip up civilian demand for the same model (but with higher markups). Beretta pioneered this trend with the M9 sidearm.
- Most data on gun usage in America looks bad for the gun industry. So they pushed Congress to enact the Tiahrt Amendment (R-KS, NRA stooge) preventing the ATF from using its budget to publish any gun data to the public. Plenty of private orgs research and publish gun studies, but they don't have the deep access and "big data" resources that the ATF does. We could know which gun models were most often used in which type of crimes, smuggling/lethality rates, etc. But this could severely impact sales, so the info is not available to the public.
- Both Clinton and Bush signed executive orders to limit or block the importation of gun models that do not have a "clear sporting purpose." So far Obama has not, but he could with the stroke of a pen. It wouldn't regulate domestic manufacturers, but would still help.
No comments:
Post a Comment