Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl
Yes, that's pretty close. I guess I'm not trying to sing a song to an entirely deaf audience... 
The NRA types are happy to stand around, and verbally express their disgust and moral outrage at how irresponsible she was. But, when it comes time to make her legally responsible (so you can effect real change, rather than just standing around, shaking your finger and saying "shame on you"), then they back off REAL quick, because going there means touching the huge political hot potato of revisiting gun laws.
Yes, the 7-round-rule is silly, as I've already said. However, before that even came out, right after the Sandy Hook shooting, the NRA had AMPLE opportunity to have taken a position that would have endeared them to the MAJORITY of people who want to see some kind of change now.
They could have said, hey, mass confiscations are certainly off the table, but we'd be willing to engage in preliminary discussions to see if something could be changed to prevent or deter the next one. Maybe make it so the next Ms. Lanza knows she could be charged if she does survive, and maybe that will cause her to lock her stuff away. Maybe register her guns with the authorities, so that it's easier to identify and monitor households which contain both mentally unstable people and guns (just like insurance companies want to understandably monitor households with muscle cars and teenage boys) Not an unreasonable olive branch. Maybe if they did something like that, anti-gun crowd would say, OK, we have something to work with here, and the 7-round-rule would have never seen the light of day. They'd be too busy working on picking the real juicy fruit.
These mass shootings are very rare. However, parents of 6 year olds who saw what happened are understandably very upset and nervous. These people are not ALL driven by a subversive liberal agenda to strip you of all your guns. Before Newtown, many of them probably didnt think about it that much. For the NRA to respond as they did, with a "the answer is MORE guns in your kids school", reveals a clumsy social insensitivity that is beyond words. I dont have kids, and even I could anticipate the fear they must have had sending their kids to school the next day. Is it logically sound, statistically speaking? Nope. But, when it comes to possibly losing your own child, I can understand that emotion may cloud reason. That should come as no surprise.
For the gun owner, well I dont have a gun either, but I cannot possibly imagine that someone's attachment to their AR-15 being as strong as a parent's attachment to their 6-year old daughter, so the really have less "excuse" to respond as irrationally or emotionally. |
Yes, like the republican party, the NRA could benefit from a good PR department. They did have a chance to be the hero, providing positive solutions to guard against such tragedies in the future. It was probably a golden opportunity to gain support and respect. They could have gotten a lot of mileage out of bringing something to the table first.
It seems clear that there will be some type of legislation coming down the pipe, so why not get in there first and be part of the solution. Even with guarding the 2nd amendment fiercely being their agenda, they could have more easily done that being in on the new talks. Keep your enemies close....