Following the mass shooting in New Zealand a couple weeks ago, I took to social media to speak out against gun violence and advocate for stricter gun laws. While roughly four-fifths of the responses were positive, the other fifth was not. These individuals tended to reply with, "Now is not the time," "It's too soon," or "Show some respect and sympathy for the grieving families."
In a utopic society, I could understand this train of thought. Hell, I used to be in the same camp as these negative-responders. I used to think, after a mass shooting, it was insensitive to make things political while the victims' families continually sobbed for days on end about the loss of their loved ones. But things change, people evolve (well, some of us), and in saying that, my viewpoint on the subject at hand has evolved as well.
Do you notice there seems to never be a good time to talk about gun violence and what we, as a nation, can do to condense the high frequency of these horrific incidents? After the Sandy Hook shooting, it wasn't the right time. Weeks after the shooting, where 26 elementary school kids and their teachers were shot and killed, it still wasn't the right time. Once the media began focusing their attention on the new shiny object in the room, the public outrage waned, and political "leaders" could focus their time, energy, and attention on more pressing topics (like making themselves more money). Then the next mass shooting occurs and we go through the same exact cycle until we reach the point we're at today.
In other words, not discussing the subject of gun violence hasn't worked. As has been stated a million and two times (make that a million and three), the definition of insanity is doing something in the same manner time and time again and expecting different results. So yes, I'm basically calling our country, or at least our politicians, crazy. What's the first step to solving a problem? Admitting you have one. That seems like common sense, for how can a drug addict overcome his or her addiction(s) if he/she doesn't recognize that it is an addiction? That's simply not possible. Sadly, many politicians, especially on the right side of the aisle, fail to recognize gun violence as a problem in this country. Granted, large donations from pro-gun groups like the NRA may be clouding their vision a bit, but even so, they shouldn't be so naivé as to think gun violence isn't a problem in this country. The next step is to discuss the problem and what can be done to solve it. Sure, we need to get past step one in order to work on step 2, but a guy can dream, can't he?
This is where we are as a country with regard to gun violence. A certain segment of the population doesn't believe gun violence is a problem. Another segment feels everyone knows it's a problem and dismisses the claims that the first segment actually exists. Due to this, the second segment feels a third segment who speaks out loudly on social media for stricter gun laws following a mass shooting are insensitive. I used to be in the second segment, but have now transferred to the third, because first of all, I'm not crazy (technically speaking). This silent routine post-mass shootings doesn't work, so I'm not going to continue down this same path. Secondly, I'm now cognizant of the sad fact that many in this country don't believe in the severity of gun violence.
In my opinion, especially given the state of our country, it's more insensitive to play the silent card post-mass shooting than it is to openly talk about the issue. What has silence resulted in? I'll tell you what - nothing legislatively, which has resulted in more mass shootings, and with that, more deaths. At least by trying to talk about the issue, I and others in the before-mentioned third segment are trying to prevent future gun-related deaths. How can that be construed as insensitive? After the AIDS epidemic hit, was it insensitive to openly discuss ways to cure the fatal disease? After the 9/11 attacks, was it insensitive to ask why the attack occurred and what we could do to substantially decrease the odds of it happening again? What makes gun violence different? On average, more people die of guns in a single month in this country than they did on 9/11. Think about that for a moment. How devastated were you on the morning of September 11th, 2001? The question is always asked, "Where were you when that happened?" Since that time, at least in terms of numbers, we, as a nation, have gone through 210 9/11s when it comes to gun violence. That's over 600,000 people whose lives have been taken from us due to guns. After the immediate shock wore off from the 9/11 attacks, what did the government do? Agree with their decision-making or not, they took swift action. Then President Bush declared a "war on terror," talked about countering an "axis of evil," and decided to take us to war. That's not even including the fact laws were passed which made even dead ACLU members cringe, namely The Patriot Act. Yet the government hasn't acted in such a strong manner against gun violence. They haven't declared a war against it, taken swift action legislatively to decrease deaths, or charted a new axis of evil that included the National Rifle Association. This is for two reasons: 1) The money coming in from the NRA and other like-organizations, and 2) Not wanting to lose votes on election day, which would inevitably come in the shape of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and company shouting for all their viewers to vote against the individuals whom supported stronger gun laws. The Republican Party is essentially playing the American people, in denying a serious problem exists, diverting the real issue to a false one regarding the 2nd Amendment, and laughing all the way to the bank. When they say, "It's too soon. Show a little respect for the families.," what they're really saying is, "Shut up, show us the money, and elect us again without giving one f*ck, let alone two for the victims' families."
The fact of the matter is, there is never a perfect time to discuss an issue which has taken the lives of so many. No matter when you talk about it, you're probably going to come across as insensitive to some. The longer we ignore this issue, though, the longer it will continue and more lives will be lost as a result. At least for me, the question becomes, "If we had talked about it sooner, could we have stopped this mass shooting?" So while it may not seem like a good time to talk about this issue on social media or in person, it's always a perfect time to try and save a life, or in this case, what's amounted to over 600,000 lives since 9/11. I think those grieving families would ardently agree.
In a utopic society, I could understand this train of thought. Hell, I used to be in the same camp as these negative-responders. I used to think, after a mass shooting, it was insensitive to make things political while the victims' families continually sobbed for days on end about the loss of their loved ones. But things change, people evolve (well, some of us), and in saying that, my viewpoint on the subject at hand has evolved as well.
Do you notice there seems to never be a good time to talk about gun violence and what we, as a nation, can do to condense the high frequency of these horrific incidents? After the Sandy Hook shooting, it wasn't the right time. Weeks after the shooting, where 26 elementary school kids and their teachers were shot and killed, it still wasn't the right time. Once the media began focusing their attention on the new shiny object in the room, the public outrage waned, and political "leaders" could focus their time, energy, and attention on more pressing topics (like making themselves more money). Then the next mass shooting occurs and we go through the same exact cycle until we reach the point we're at today.
In other words, not discussing the subject of gun violence hasn't worked. As has been stated a million and two times (make that a million and three), the definition of insanity is doing something in the same manner time and time again and expecting different results. So yes, I'm basically calling our country, or at least our politicians, crazy. What's the first step to solving a problem? Admitting you have one. That seems like common sense, for how can a drug addict overcome his or her addiction(s) if he/she doesn't recognize that it is an addiction? That's simply not possible. Sadly, many politicians, especially on the right side of the aisle, fail to recognize gun violence as a problem in this country. Granted, large donations from pro-gun groups like the NRA may be clouding their vision a bit, but even so, they shouldn't be so naivé as to think gun violence isn't a problem in this country. The next step is to discuss the problem and what can be done to solve it. Sure, we need to get past step one in order to work on step 2, but a guy can dream, can't he?
This is where we are as a country with regard to gun violence. A certain segment of the population doesn't believe gun violence is a problem. Another segment feels everyone knows it's a problem and dismisses the claims that the first segment actually exists. Due to this, the second segment feels a third segment who speaks out loudly on social media for stricter gun laws following a mass shooting are insensitive. I used to be in the second segment, but have now transferred to the third, because first of all, I'm not crazy (technically speaking). This silent routine post-mass shootings doesn't work, so I'm not going to continue down this same path. Secondly, I'm now cognizant of the sad fact that many in this country don't believe in the severity of gun violence.
In my opinion, especially given the state of our country, it's more insensitive to play the silent card post-mass shooting than it is to openly talk about the issue. What has silence resulted in? I'll tell you what - nothing legislatively, which has resulted in more mass shootings, and with that, more deaths. At least by trying to talk about the issue, I and others in the before-mentioned third segment are trying to prevent future gun-related deaths. How can that be construed as insensitive? After the AIDS epidemic hit, was it insensitive to openly discuss ways to cure the fatal disease? After the 9/11 attacks, was it insensitive to ask why the attack occurred and what we could do to substantially decrease the odds of it happening again? What makes gun violence different? On average, more people die of guns in a single month in this country than they did on 9/11. Think about that for a moment. How devastated were you on the morning of September 11th, 2001? The question is always asked, "Where were you when that happened?" Since that time, at least in terms of numbers, we, as a nation, have gone through 210 9/11s when it comes to gun violence. That's over 600,000 people whose lives have been taken from us due to guns. After the immediate shock wore off from the 9/11 attacks, what did the government do? Agree with their decision-making or not, they took swift action. Then President Bush declared a "war on terror," talked about countering an "axis of evil," and decided to take us to war. That's not even including the fact laws were passed which made even dead ACLU members cringe, namely The Patriot Act. Yet the government hasn't acted in such a strong manner against gun violence. They haven't declared a war against it, taken swift action legislatively to decrease deaths, or charted a new axis of evil that included the National Rifle Association. This is for two reasons: 1) The money coming in from the NRA and other like-organizations, and 2) Not wanting to lose votes on election day, which would inevitably come in the shape of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and company shouting for all their viewers to vote against the individuals whom supported stronger gun laws. The Republican Party is essentially playing the American people, in denying a serious problem exists, diverting the real issue to a false one regarding the 2nd Amendment, and laughing all the way to the bank. When they say, "It's too soon. Show a little respect for the families.," what they're really saying is, "Shut up, show us the money, and elect us again without giving one f*ck, let alone two for the victims' families."
The fact of the matter is, there is never a perfect time to discuss an issue which has taken the lives of so many. No matter when you talk about it, you're probably going to come across as insensitive to some. The longer we ignore this issue, though, the longer it will continue and more lives will be lost as a result. At least for me, the question becomes, "If we had talked about it sooner, could we have stopped this mass shooting?" So while it may not seem like a good time to talk about this issue on social media or in person, it's always a perfect time to try and save a life, or in this case, what's amounted to over 600,000 lives since 9/11. I think those grieving families would ardently agree.
Comments
Post a Comment