Shooting
What happened today was a terrible tragedy.
That goes without saying, of course, but if I don't say that, someone might accuse me of being callous or something. I suppose they will anyway.
What I want to say is that I don't really feel much about what happened. It sucks. It's terrible. But ... I dunno, it doesn't affect me much. Lots of terrible things happen in this world, and lots of people die every day. I can't afford to care significantly about all of the terrible things that happen; none of us can, and none of us do.
So I just don't see why this should get any special attention. You could say that it's important politically, and I'd agree, but that's kinda question-begging: why SHOULD it be important politically? This isn't a political issue.
I'll skip the ObGunRightsStatement and just say that the guy reloaded many times, and there's no reason to think that "low capacity" magazines would have impeded his progress significantly, so the "Assault Weapons Ban" is irrelevant to this discussion. So again, that means this isn't a political issue, because no one is talking seriously about banning regular handguns.
I suppose you could talk about how he got the gun. Maybe he got it at a gun show! Maybe he exploited "the loophole!" Or maybe there was no waiting period! He could've gotten a gun if he wanted it. People who get mad and shoot someone could benefit from a might possibly be deterred from shooting someone if they cannot get quick access to a gun. They might benefit from a "cooling off" period. But people who go on mass rampages usually bide their time.
So, I just don't have a big reason to care about this, is all. I cared a lot more about last year's rampage at the Seattle Jewish Federation (even though "only" one person was killed), simply because it was a lot closer to home (the killer used to live in Everett, just down the road a bit), and because it was less random (it was Muslim-on-Jewish violence, even though like most shootings, it was more about rage and mental problems than anything else), it was more meaningful.
One more thing.
Why is it that shootings used to always be white guys, but increasingly they are nonwhite guys? The Jewish federation guy, Naveed Haq, was Pakistani; there was Indian Biswanath Halder who killed a student in Ohio in 2003; Robert Flores who fatally shot his professor at Arizona in 2002; Peter Odighizuwa killed some people at Virginia's Appalachian School of Law. Most of the mass and school shootings I can recall since 9/11/2001 were by nonwhites, and most prior to it were by whites.
I don't know that this means anything at all. It's just kinda weird. I remember comedians years ago joking about how mass shooters were always white guys, and that's just not the case anymore.
OK, one more one more thing.
Alberto Gonzales' testimony for tomorrow was postponed because of the shooting. That makes me think Karl Rove had something to do with it. DYKR!!!!
That goes without saying, of course, but if I don't say that, someone might accuse me of being callous or something. I suppose they will anyway.
What I want to say is that I don't really feel much about what happened. It sucks. It's terrible. But ... I dunno, it doesn't affect me much. Lots of terrible things happen in this world, and lots of people die every day. I can't afford to care significantly about all of the terrible things that happen; none of us can, and none of us do.
So I just don't see why this should get any special attention. You could say that it's important politically, and I'd agree, but that's kinda question-begging: why SHOULD it be important politically? This isn't a political issue.
I'll skip the ObGunRightsStatement and just say that the guy reloaded many times, and there's no reason to think that "low capacity" magazines would have impeded his progress significantly, so the "Assault Weapons Ban" is irrelevant to this discussion. So again, that means this isn't a political issue, because no one is talking seriously about banning regular handguns.
I suppose you could talk about how he got the gun. Maybe he got it at a gun show! Maybe he exploited "the loophole!" Or maybe there was no waiting period! He could've gotten a gun if he wanted it. People who get mad and shoot someone could benefit from a might possibly be deterred from shooting someone if they cannot get quick access to a gun. They might benefit from a "cooling off" period. But people who go on mass rampages usually bide their time.
So, I just don't have a big reason to care about this, is all. I cared a lot more about last year's rampage at the Seattle Jewish Federation (even though "only" one person was killed), simply because it was a lot closer to home (the killer used to live in Everett, just down the road a bit), and because it was less random (it was Muslim-on-Jewish violence, even though like most shootings, it was more about rage and mental problems than anything else), it was more meaningful.
One more thing.
Why is it that shootings used to always be white guys, but increasingly they are nonwhite guys? The Jewish federation guy, Naveed Haq, was Pakistani; there was Indian Biswanath Halder who killed a student in Ohio in 2003; Robert Flores who fatally shot his professor at Arizona in 2002; Peter Odighizuwa killed some people at Virginia's Appalachian School of Law. Most of the mass and school shootings I can recall since 9/11/2001 were by nonwhites, and most prior to it were by whites.
I don't know that this means anything at all. It's just kinda weird. I remember comedians years ago joking about how mass shooters were always white guys, and that's just not the case anymore.
OK, one more one more thing.
Alberto Gonzales' testimony for tomorrow was postponed because of the shooting. That makes me think Karl Rove had something to do with it. DYKR!!!!
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment