dagblog - Comments for "You Don't Need a Gun: Mass Shooters"

Obligatory:

Verified Atheist — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:54:49 +0000

Obligatory:

And, of course, trained

Michael Maiello — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:19:30 +0000

In reply to You Don't Need a Gun: Mass Shooters

And, of course, trained police officers and soldiers who have had combat experience find that their reasoning and sharpshooting abilities are definitely affected by the heightened circumstances around a fight to the death. Everybody knows police officers who finish entire careers without ever firing a shot and if you are not a police officer, your chances of never having to use that self defense weapon you're carrying has got to be higher (unless, as sadly seems the case, you're one of those people who carries a gun and also tries to get themselves into situations where it will be used.) For the civilian, even one who practices a lot, the circumstance where you will draw your gun to defend yourself or others is going to come out of the blue, at totally the wrong moment, when you have your keys in one hand, two bags of groceries dangling from the other, the sun is in your eyes and you're trying to figure out how the electric bill could be $40 higher and it isn't even summer yet. In short, you'll shoot your eye out.

I don't think Republicans

CVille Dem — Sun, 08 Jun 2014 22:14:03 +0000

In reply to His particular stance in all

I don't think Republicans like Luntz any more. He is too sensible. I never liked the way he manipulated their terrible policies with "framing" words to make them sound more palatable to the GOP bad, but the guy is no dummy.

His particular stance in all

Elusive Trope — Sun, 08 Jun 2014 17:55:48 +0000

In reply to It's a sure sign that

His particular stance in all of this is interesting: from Wiki:

Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe "global warming" as "climate change" since "climate change" was thought to sound less severe.^[16] Luntz has since said that he is not responsible for what the Bush administration did after that time. Though he now believes humans have contributed to global warming, he maintains that the science was in fact incomplete, and his recommendation sound, at the time he made it.^[17]

In a 2002 memo to President George W. Bush titled "The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America", obtained by the Environmental Working Group, Luntz wrote: "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.... Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."^[18]

In 2010, Luntz announced new research that shows the American people are eager for Congress to act on climate legislation that would promote energy independence and a healthier environment. "Americans want their leaders to act on climate change – but not necessarily for the reasons you think," Luntz said. "A clear majority of Americans believe climate change is happening. This is true of McCain voters and Obama voters alike. And even those that don't still believe it is essential for America to pursue policies that promote energy independence and a cleaner, healthier environment." In reference to recent political events, Luntz added: "People are much more interested in seeing solutions than watching yet another partisan political argument."

It's a sure sign that

Verified Atheist — Sun, 08 Jun 2014 17:42:52 +0000

In reply to From an Think Progress: That

It's a sure sign that scientists (such as myself) are so out of touch with the general public when we're advocating for the same term that the GOP's premiere spin-meister is.

From an Think Progress: That

Elusive Trope — Sat, 07 Jun 2014 23:58:24 +0000

In reply to I'm pretty sure that

From an Think Progress: That latter switch was championed by the GOP’s spinmaster, Frank Luntz, who, as it turns out, also championed switching from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ in 2003.

I just remember listening to an interview on NPR with Frank Luntz about that time when he mentioned his push to get the GOP to use the term 'global warming.'

I'm pretty sure that

Verified Atheist — Sat, 07 Jun 2014 21:52:17 +0000

In reply to Just for clarity sake, the

I'm pretty sure that climatologists were the ones behind the change of terminology from "global warming" to "climate change" exactly because it better reflects the extent of what is happening. Many conservatives have mocked that change in terminology because they misinterpret it (probably deliberately, but I can't completely rule out stupidity) to mean that scientists have changed their mind about whether global warming is happening. Furthermore, unfortunately, a study recently found that the general public reacts with more alarm to the term "global warming" than to "climate change".

Otherwise, I'm in completely agreement.

This may reflect the

Lurker — Sat, 07 Jun 2014 15:03:25 +0000

In reply to You Don't Need a Gun: Mass Shooters

This may reflect the situation in the United States, but in Israel gunmen have been stopped many times by armed civilians.

I am very angry too. I spent

trkingmomoe — Fri, 06 Jun 2014 17:39:06 +0000

In reply to You Don't Need a Gun: Mass Shooters

I am very angry too. I spent the evening writing emails to elected officials that represent me. I made it clear to them that I would not vote for any of them if they did not support tougher gun regulations. I also told them I would work hard to defeat any of them in the next election if they did not act to move forward tougher regulations. That our fore fathers would never had allowed mass murder of citizens the price for the freedom of individuals to own weapons of war. I told them I was fed up with individuals walking around intimidating people in public spaces with weapons of war just to prove they can. I will not be intimidated by being call unpatriotic because I have a DD214 registered at the courthouse that says different. I was beyond tolerating this in our society and have reached the point of extreme anger that will not go away as the killings continue.

Every week I get an email from Allen Grayson. I am not in his district but he feels he represents all of Florida. I also get emails not as often from Debbie W-Sultze and a few others out side my district in this state. I made sure last night they all heard from me.

If you want the system to work for you, you have to work the system.

Just for clarity sake, the

Elusive Trope — Fri, 06 Jun 2014 14:21:12 +0000

In reply to You Don't Need a Gun: Mass Shooters

Just for clarity sake, the student monitor did use pepper spray on the gun man before he was subdued. But this doesn't change your basic argument. He didn't have to be armed with a lethal weapon, merely something that enabled him to more easily subdue the gunman.

Maybe the answer is looking toward controlling specific gun types (e.g. Bushmaster with the larger clip) , and finding the different terminology to capture this more targeted effort (pardon the pun), a tactic well-known to conservatives. One of my favorites is their efforts to switch global warming to climate change because it didn't change so ominous as global warming, which I think kind of backfired, because given the weather impacts (e.g. colder and harsher winters), climate change actually better reflects the experiences of real people than the more scientifically accurate term global warming.

"Gun control" legislation aimed at limiting the clip size available or guns able to be easily turn from semi-automatic to automatic weapons sounds like you are attempting to control all guns, and more importantly, the ability of people to possess guns.