With the tragedy in Texas in which a crazed white man killed nearly two dozen people, it’s obvious that we are going to get the same people saying the same thing. If he’s been Muslim, the talk would be about keeping Muslims out of the country. Since he’s white, it’s going to be about psychiatric problems. As people send prayers to people who were praying, obviously the gun fanatics will keep things exactly the same and nothing will change.
What I found perfect was the article in the Onion, which began:
In the hours following a violent rampage in Texas in which a lone attacker killed 27 individuals and seriously injured several others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Sunday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place.
That may sound vaguely familiar to regular Onion readers. There’s a good reason for it.
Aside from changing the names and numbers of where the shooting took place, and the name and state of residence of a person who mourns the fact that nothing could be done to stop it, they ran the identical article after the Las Vegas shooting and shootings in California. Because all the same people are going to say all the same things, without change, without question, and without any sense of irony.
You can read the full article(s) here.
PAD
• 
What bugs me the most is that the orange fellow said it was a mental health issue, not a gun issue. Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but ANYONE who would shoot up a church full of people in cold blood has mental health problems. Second, even the State of TEXAS wouldn’t give him a permit for a gun, so, thereby, it HAS become a gun problem.
“We have a lot of mental health problems in our country, but this isn’t a gun situation.”
~ The Words of Donald Trump, November 6, 2017
.
“Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With Mental Illnesses”
“President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.”
~ The Actions of Donald Trump, February 28, 2017
.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221
.
“The text before us does remove the application of the essential health benefits for the alternative benefit plans in Medicaid,” a lawyer for Republicans on the committee responded.
.
“Including mental health?”
.
“Yes.”
.
Elected Republicans This Year
.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/09/gop-health-care-bill-would-drop-mental-health-coverage-mandate-covering-1-3-million-americans/?utm_term=.20ae5947ee77
.
Maybe it’s actually more of an “The Ignorant Úšhølëš in Charge” problem.
The Onion also had a sadly appropriate follow-up, taking on the people who say they can’t act “because it’s too soon and we don’t know everything” and then wait until it’s forgotten: https://www.theonion.com/nation-to-wait-for-more-facts-on-texas-shooting-before-1820186609
This has been their standard response since around Sandy Hook.
One day, they ran an article along the lines of “Nation Relieved There No New Horror Today.” Then a mass shooting happened, and they just added “Update: Never mind.”
I live in the south. I couldn’t vote for Mr. Trump in good conscience, but my state’s electors went for him regardless. My state isn’t a swing state. It’s interesting to know that your singular vote doesn’t really matter, but I still cast it and I cast in opposition to the man who currently holds the presidential office.
I know dealing with the gun situation in our country is difficult. Hunting is an important part of the culture of many Americans and is used to help control certain animal populations. Guns themselves are durable goods and thus, difficult to remove the large number that are already in circulation. However, there was a statement made by President Obama during his time in the office about gun control that has stuck with me for years for how reasonable it was.
Please forgive me that I do not remember the details of when or where he said it, but I remember hearing it on the news. He basically said that there has to be a way to allow the hunter in Oklahoma (or wherever) access to a hunting rifle while restricting guns that are designed for mass killing. I am sure he said it more eloquently than that, but the reasonableness of that statement has stuck with me.
I live in an area where gun ownership is seen as an unqualified good. I disagree with that and do not own any firearms. It is difficult for me to look at the people around me and realize that they value their ability to purchase and own a gun more than they value their fellow humans’ lives.
I cannot fathom that. If we have to allow guns, why do we have to allow semi-automatic guns? We already restrict/ban fully automatic guns (at least to my understanding). I know folks do use semi-automatic rifles for hunting, but it is by no means necessary for that task (folks were hunting with single shot rifles for a long time after all).
Personally, I would be fine with the full removal of firearms from private life, though I recognize the reality of that is probably impossible. But, there has to be reasonable steps we can take to prevent these tragedies. It is deeply upsetting and troubling that its my neighbors who refuse to take those steps.
I know that I am preaching to the proverbial choir here and I hope that you’ll forgive me for it. I take the opportunities that I have to discuss these issues with my friends and neighbors when I can though I never seem to make much headway. I just needed an opportunity to shout my frustration into the digital void. There’s so many stories that I could share, but I doubt this is the appropriate place or time. I suppose that I just want you to know that there are folks in the South who see this situation as being as morally heinous as you do.
I hope that I live to see the day that our country is confronted with evil, such as we have seen in these mass killings, and our response is to not only genuinely respond with compassion to those who suffer from it, but also respond with resolute conviction to restrain or prevent the recurrence of such evil.
> Hunting is an important part of the culture of many Americans and is used to help control certain animal populations.
.
If only our (Canadian) politicians got that. Ontario and, to an extent, Quebec legislatures have thrown up so many roadblocks and hoops to jump through that co-workers whom I knew to have done the Fall hunting thing to bring an edible carcass or two gave up because it was more bureaucratic trouble than it was worth. Sounds good. Except for the increasing number of wild animals starting to nibble at the edges of our ever growing cities. Meanwhile, politicians wring their hands and wonder what they can do to solve the problem they helped bring about. *Sigh*
.
> I know folks do use semi-automatic rifles for hunting, but it is by no means necessary for that task (folks were hunting with single shot rifles for a long time after all).
.
True. But they were probably better shots back then. Do you really want to have wounded game out loose? I’m no fan of military-grade weaponry in the hands of civvies. A compromise: small capacity (5 rounds?) clip-fed, bolt-action rifles. Puts paid to the rapid, mass killings we’ve seen, but also leaves a decent chance of finishing off a wounded animal. And, as long as we’re dreaming, tighter licensing requirements but, as long as we’re dreaming, maybe warp drive to get us off this insane planet. At this rate, I’m half expecting to see the latter come to be first. (Feel free to tear the idea apart, I can only write from limited experience in this region.)