Earlier this week, I was listening to NPR while driving to the local farmer's market, and managed to catch the tale end of a debate on gun control, with the specific focus (at least of the part that I was listening to) being on the sincerity and effect, or perhaps the lack thereof, of the popular expression by prominent politicians in the aftermath of just about every tragedy that falls upon us.
Of course, I am referring to politicians who state that their "thoughts and prayers" are with the victims and their families. In particular, it seemed that they were discussing politicians who's only real response to such tragedies is to express that their "thoughts and prayers" are with the families of the fallen.
Frankly, I thought the inadequacy and, frankly, hypocrisy of politicians and other people of influence and power to express the popular fallback expression or sentiment that your "thoughts and prayers" are with the victims and the surviving family and friends was obvious.
Of course, I am referring to politicians who state that their "thoughts and prayers" are with the victims and their families. In particular, it seemed that they were discussing politicians who's only real response to such tragedies is to express that their "thoughts and prayers" are with the families of the fallen.
Frankly, I thought the inadequacy and, frankly, hypocrisy of politicians and other people of influence and power to express the popular fallback expression or sentiment that your "thoughts and prayers" are with the victims and the surviving family and friends was obvious.
After all, these are people in positions of power. They have the ability to actually take action, and make sure that certain tragedies, like the recent slate of random mass shootings, can at least be limited, if not outright prevented.
Yet, time and time again, once there actually is a tragedy concerning, inevitably, some lunatic who took an assault weapon and started shooting people up in some public space or other, these same politicians claim that it is "too soon" to talk about measures to make access to guns - particularly assault weapons - more difficult.
In fact, serious debate about gun control measures always seems to be blocked from actually taking place on the floor of Congress. It is one of those subjects that, at least from all appearances, seems to be a non-starter for Congress, even though the issue keeps getting right back on the radar following each mass shooting. And let's be frank: when is the last time that we have gone any great length of time without some mass shooting taking place?
So, this is one of the areas where Americans get their sense of "exceptionalism" both right and wrong.
How can I say that?
Well, just like with healthcare, and environmentalism (and acceptance of science more generally), and education, and other areas more generally, Americans seem somehow comfortable ignoring realities in the rest of the world, and assuming that simple measures taken in other countries could never work here. In fact, many of the most rigid supporters of the second amendment suggest, straight-faced, that once guns will be taken away from Americans (like that will ever happen), it will be a prelude to an inevitable fascist/communist dictatorship, and that labor camps or even death camps will follow.
It is crazy logic, if indeed it qualifies as logic. Yet, it wins out, time and time and time again.
And their "solution" to gun violence is to promote even more guns in America. They suggest this with a straight face, as well. This argument defies logic, not to mention facts. But it also wins out, time and time and time again. At least among our nationally elected officials it does, even though numerous polls suggest that a majority of Americans do not believe it. Still, for all intents and purposes, that does not matter, because right now, the reality is that politicians, and the NRA lobby that is pulling their strings and making them rich in the background, as the ones who are really running things on this particular issue.
As far as I am concerned, it is all bloody money. It is the reason that they never take any meaningful action on this issue.
This guy being interviewed on NPR was taking exception to those people, like me, who take exception to the meaninglessness of the "thoughts and prayers" sentiment. He was offended that the sincerity behind this sentiment was being questioned. But who cares about whether these politicians are truly sincere, or sad, when they say it. They do literally nothing else but say this phrase when a tragedy strikes, other than those politicians who's duty it is to show up. And many of those politicians, like Trump in Las Vegas or Pence in Sutherland Springs, visit the families of the victims, say their speeches, and wait for the next opportunity to look thoughtful and sympathetic with their "thoughts and prayers" the next time that we inevitably see a mass shooting of these kinds. We have already seen one since in northern California. Does anyone really believe that it will end there?
Of course not.
This guy on NPR dismissively suggested that it does not matter that people on the internet, "liberal activists" as he derisively referred to them, are complaining about the whole "thoughts and prayers" thing. In fact, that was his parting shot. Yet, there he was on NPR, on a segment about this whole controversy. And let's be frank, how much do politicians "thoughts and prayers" matter, anyway?
Still, they have to do or say something, of course. They cannot well pretend that this kind of gun violence does not exist. And so, that is when we have to hear their nonsense about "thoughts and prayers," as if that does anything. They are in positions of power, these people. They can do something. Yet, they offer nothing more than supposedly sympathetic "thoughts and prayers." Basically, they keep telling us that prays work. Did it work for those who were praying inside of that Texas church just moments before the gunman starting spraying them with bullets?
Here are parts of a statement by then President Obama following the Shootings at Umpqua Community College, Roseburg, Oregon, which I thought should be added. I did not agree with Obama on many things, but here, he seems to be spot on:
We don't yet know why this individual did what he did. And it's fair to say that anybody who does this has a sickness in their minds, regardless of what they think their motivations may be. But we are not the only country on Earth that has people with mental illnesses or want to do harm to other people. We are the only advanced country on Earth that sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months.
We talked about this after Columbine and Blacksburg, after Tucson, after Newtown, after Aurora, after Charleston. It cannot be this easy for somebody who wants to inflict harm on other people to get his or her hands on a gun.
And what’s become routine, of course, is the response of those who oppose any kind of common-sense gun legislation. Right now, I can imagine the press releases being cranked out: We need more guns, they’ll argue. Fewer gun safety laws.
Does anybody really believe that? There are scores of responsible gun owners in this country --they know that's not true. We know because of the polling that says the majority of Americans understand we should be changing these laws -- including the majority of responsible, law-abiding gun owners.
There is a gun for roughly every man, woman, and child in America. So how can you, with a straight face, make the argument that more guns will make us safer? We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don't work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens and criminals will still get their guns is not borne out by the evidence. We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours -- Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.
This is a political choice that we make to allow this to happen every few months in America. We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of our inaction. When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer. When Americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we make communities safer. When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities. We have seatbelt laws because we know it saves lives. So the notion that gun violence is somehow different, that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt and protect their families and do everything they do under such regulations doesn’t make sense.
Statement by the President on the Shootings at Umpqua Community College, Roseburg, Oregon James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 6:22 P.M. EDT
No comments:
Post a Comment