Doing What’s Right After Newtown

newtown-school-shooting

The pattern of response to tragedies like Newtown is set in stone. Grief, sadness, mourning, identifying the victims, understanding the killer’s motive, and the news gets a little quieter and more reverential and then we move past it.

How about we do something more this time? How about we not allow a fringe organization packed to the gills with all manner of bizarre (sometimes bigoted) conspiracy theories to dictate the safety of our society. How about we tell the NRA to keep quiet and let us go about the business of helping our society?

The familiar arguments have already made the rounds. First, we can’t talk about remedying gun violence in the immediate aftermath of yet another mass shooting. Then the argument is made that sensible gun laws wouldn’t have prevented the particular mass shooting we’re talking about. These are both nonsense excuses.

Gun violence is a regular part of American life, unfortunately. There are very few days in between incidents like these, unfortunately. And you don’t assess the viability of a law based on the particular crime it may or may not have prevented. You make choices about these laws based on common sense. It may not have prevented this mass killing, but it may prevent the next one.

The assassin is responsible for his horrific crime, but we have no obligation to make it easier for him and others to murder like this, or worse.

Like Us On Facebook!

More on the Banter:

Thanks Obama! Now Fox Thinks The Interview Flap Is The White House's Fault

Thanks Obama! Now Fox Thinks The Interview Flap Is The White House's Fault

It must be completely exhausting to work at Fox News, where literally every effing thing is Obama's [Read more...]
America, Fuck No: Paramount Now Surrenders on "Team America" Because We Suck
The Best Of the Banter: Banter Begins, Bush's Gaffes, Kim Jong-un's Death, and Lots More

The Best Of the Banter: Banter Begins, Bush's Gaffes, Kim Jong-un's Death, and Lots More

We bring you the week that was in the world of Banter.[Read more...]
President Obama Talks About Racism And That Time He Was Mistaken For A Waiter

President Obama Talks About Racism And That Time He Was Mistaken For A Waiter

The President and First Lady open up to People magazine about their own experiences with racism. Peo[Read more...]
Another Republican Is Talking About 'Legitimate Rape' and I Have a Question

Another Republican Is Talking About 'Legitimate Rape' and I Have a Question

Republican State Representative Rick Brattin is introducing a bill in his home state of Missouri tha[Read more...]
  • mortyshatz

    Whoever dennis is…he needs to take plunket and his other trolling assholes somewhe else

  • mortyshatz

    Protect the kids…lets not concern ourselves with old amendments or so called rights or even bloggers…guns must go guys…

  • Plunket

    Maybe Hillary needs to wear a football helmet.

    • Christopher Foxx

      Maybe Dennis should actually try saying something intelligent some day.

      • mortyshatz

        Mr foxx…look up morty shatz on facebook…im looking for people to have intellectual conversations without having the trash of plunket or dennis or oyhumidity…ive followed this for a while and its disgusting.

  • M2

    Christopher, you didn’t hear the latest genius wingnuts conspiracy theory? You see, Sec. Clinton’s recent fall and concussion was faked so she wouldn’t have to testify before congress regarding the biggest non-scandal in US history, Benghazi-gate. These same people claim to be adults.

    • Christopher Foxx

      Jesus, is THAT what Dennis is referring to?

      New levels of dumb, every day.

  • Plunket

    “HELP ME, I’VE FALLEN….AND I CAN’T TESTIFY ON BENGHAZI.!!!!!!”

    • M2

      Another tea tard conspiracy, Dennis? Tragically comical.

    • Christopher Foxx

      Does anyone ever understand what Dennis is talking about?

    • Zython

      That reminds me. I just wish to thank John McCain for going to the press every week and reminding Americans why they didn’t vote for him.

  • db

    Dennis is back!

    Marco, you can always speak for me particularly in pointing out how Frank has welched on the bet.

    Guys,

    I agree with Mr. Hubbard’s suggestion for mandatory insurance; but beyond that what can we accomplish; given the Supreme Court?

  • SaveFarris

    And you don’t assess the viability of a law based on the particular crime it may or may not have prevented.

    You absolutely do. Passing a law to fix a problem that doesn’t actually fix the problem doesn’t work.

    Or, to put it in language that liberals might understand…

    Passing laws that wouldn’t have prevented this tragedy in the first place is like attacking Iraq after 9/11. It didn’t fix the underlying problem, but man: we sure felt good about having “done something”…

    • enlightened liberal

      Wow, Farris is finally admitting that Iraq was a mistake.

    • Christopher Foxx

      Oliver: And you don’t assess the viability of a law based on the particular crime it may or may not have prevented.

      Farris in response: You absolutely do. Passing a law to fix a problem that doesn’t actually fix the problem doesn’t work.

      You need to consider the rest of what Oliver said, Farris, if you really want to respond to his point.

      And you don’t assess the viability of a law based on the particular crime it may or may not have prevented. You make choices about these laws based on common sense. It may not have prevented this mass killing, but it may prevent the next one.

      Whether a law would have prevented a particular, specific incident is not the standard that should be used to decide on whether a law is useful. Get into specifics and one can always nit pick the details if one really wants to be obstructionist.

      The standard really should be common sense and whether something can be put in place that would make this type of incident (if not this specific one) less possible. You’re argument is verging on the “It doesn’t completely fix the problem utterly so it’s not worth doing” fallacy that’s already been addressed.

      • SaveFarris

        The standard really should be common sense and whether something can be put in place that would make this type of incident (if not this specific one) less possible.

        Bush pushed the rationale that attacking Iraq would prevent future 9/11-type incidents (even though it wouldn’t have prevented 9/11 itself). So, using your own logic, you’re all ok with the war?

        If we’re going to do something because we don’t want ‘X’ to happen ever again, then the solution, whatever it is, needs to prevent ‘X’. Otherwise, we’re just wasting everyone’s time. If you want to pass something to prevent wouldn’t prevent ‘X’ but would prevent ‘Y’, fine: just don’t use ‘X’ as the predicate for action.

        • Christopher Foxx

          Bush pushed the rationale that attacking Iraq would prevent future 9/11-type incidents (even though it wouldn’t have prevented 9/11 itself). So, using your own logic, you’re all ok with the war?

          First, you’re going to have to explain how attacking Iraq would prevent future 9/11-type incidents. That Bush was pushing that rational (one he’s since admitted was wrong, BTW) doesn’t make it a common sense plan. Indeed, were common sense in greater use at the time the invasion of Iraq would not have taken place.

          Second, you’re not using logic, Farris. Mine or anyone else’s. I know you’re thinking you’ll get me in some self-contradiction, but you’re going the “You like apples? So by your own logic you should love eating this rubber ball since it’s red and round. Ah ha!” route and making a faulty comparison.

          There has never been anything similar to the attack on 9/11, a large attack on a civilian target within the borders of the United States. The closest you could reasonably come would be Pearl Harbor. And that’s if you put aside the fundamental differences between a small group using a civilian non-weapon to attack a civilian target and using an army to attack a military target. So that gives you two extraordinary incidents in 70 years.

          On the other hand, (and very much the point here) attacks like the one in Newtown are tragically frighteningly common. In just this year alone there have been:
          – Chardon (3 dead, 6 wounded)
          – Jacksonville (1 dead)
          – Oakland (7 dead, several wounded)
          – Aurora (50 dead or wounded)
          – Oak Creek (9)
          – Portland (3)
          – Newtown (26)
          Two thirds of those at schools, and that’s not even listing the incidents where only the gunman was killed.

        • Christopher Foxx

          If we’re going to do something because we don’t want ‘X’ to happen ever again, then the solution, whatever it is, needs to prevent ‘X’. Otherwise, we’re just wasting everyone’s time.

          Well, since “X” already happened, it would be difficult to prevent. But, as was originally said, what we do now may not have prevented this “X”, but it may prevent the next one. And if it may prevent the next one, then it’s not a waste of time.

          (The waste of time is complaining that a particular course of action shouldn’t be done because it doesn’t prevent “X” from ever happening again.)

  • Christopher Foxx

    Kathryn Heath via Facebook: Its not that the people commiting these crimes don’t know how to use a gun, they did not shoot these innocent people by accident, they were fully aware of what they were doing.

    The emotionally disturbed may know what they’re doing. Does that mean nothing should be done to limit what they can do?

    The shooter in this case was 20 years old so not legally a child, child locks would not have prevented this shooting. Just because you buy a gun face to face does mean that you will use it responsibly. It only takes one bullet to kill someone.

    You no doubt think you’re being very reasonable here, Kathryn, but your reason is severely flawed. You’re arguing that just because something isn’t a perfect solution it shouldn’t be done at all. You’re arguing that, since we can’t prevent all car accidents, that we shouldn’t bother to require anyone to have a license. You’re arguing that, since we can’t prevent all drug-related crimes, there shouldn’t be laws controlling drugs.

    Yes, gun locks aren’t a perfect solution. And requiring face-to-face purchases won’t stop all murders. So we should do nothing because common sense precautions don’t prevent every misuse of a gun?

  • Plunket

    Liberal blogger hypocrisy alert:

    ‘Gun control for thee, but not for me. At least not my boss, that is.’

    David Brock, Media Matters and gun control hypocrisy

    “No explanation has been offered by the group explaining why Brock has an assistant carry a gun to protect him if he really believes all the postings put out by his organization.”

    • M2

      That’s our Dennis. Concern trolling for the right to shoot kids.

    • Christopher Foxx

      And if Brock is a hypocrite, Dennis? How does that make common sense gun control less common sense?

      That’s Dennis for you, folks. No real interest at all in the safety of children or anyone, as long as he can “Look, over there!”

    • Zython

      Well, Dennis. A few things.

      1. Did David Brock or MMfA ever call for the banning of all guns everywhere, or is this something you made up?

      2. How would you recommend they protect themselves from gun toting lunatics like you?

      Seems to me your less upset about “hypocrisy” and more about your weekend plans being ruined.