San Bernardino

It's a bigger issue and one that won't go away, and also one that gets increasingly frustrating as we see Republican cowards take NRA money and do their masters' bidding. After Sandy Hook, everyone thought for sure 21 dead children had to prompt some conscience in the GOP. Sadly it didn't, and the issue has only gotten worse. Hence, the increased coverage.

I know you think you're some kind of moralist here by declaring that discussion of these tragedies should be politics-free, but guns are an enormous problem. A bigger problem in America than Islamic terrorism is.

 

1) Total coincidence the NYT is doing this after a terrorist attack.

2) Points for the NRA talking point.

3) I am emboldened in my argument by the quality of the posters who disagree with it.

 

Aside from the specific policies you or I might favor in each case, I've come to believe that the instinct not to want to "politicize" issues is usually wrong. How else is anything going to change except through the political process?

 

In a way, you're right. Political processes need to be discussed. It's the knee-jerk responses to defend your side (be it the gun argument or terrorist argument) that are basically stand-ins for substantive debate. I have no problem with a greater focus on gun control. But this particular focus is transparent in its goal.

 

The banner headline is about terrorism.

The reason the op-ed runs now is, in part, because this is the mass shooting that has really had legs as a news story. (Due to the terrorism connection.)

 

Sunshine's outlook:

Adam Lanza: Eh, whaddya gonna do.

James Holmes: Eh, whaddya gonna do.

Syed Farook: DO SOMETHING!!!

 

#substantivedebate

 

Go back and check the threads, under whatever name you want. We must not discuss the issue of gun control after these mass murders.

 

The position of the NRA is that it is okay for people believed to be terrorists to still be able to buy guns.

How can anyone defend that?

 

No, you're confused. You must not talk about terrorism after a terror attack -- be it Paris or San Bernardino. I've said countless times on here I have no problem with certain additional gun restrictions. I will now go back and check the threads to see if you ever said anything negative about terrorism. Again, it's not discussing gun control I have an issue with (although no one is really interested in a real discussion), it's WHY gun control has become the focus for some this time. It's a level of phony concern for one issue used as a means of downplaying another issue.

 

That's a terrible law.