There are many, many contributing factors to these shootings, and varied. The only thing we can know for sure is that without guns they would not occur. No dithering, no waffling, no "is it video games or violence on TV" nonsense. Without guns there would not be those shootings. The one common denominator. And we don't let children play with guns until they grow up and learn to be responsible with them, we take them away for the benefit of them and others. We see to it that irresponsible people cannot get guns, and for many, many people that means no guns in the house. And there are no shootings. They don't wait for them to grow up.
Outrage can lead to change. It's a motivator. I'll bet Winston Churchill was outraged during WWII. I'll bet a muted outrage wasn't unknown to Mother Teresa. She was also understanding and accepting, she accepted the Will of her God, and yet a struggle against the existing system kept her going. Sympathy is a noble effort, but ultimately reinforces victimhood. Sympathy certainly didn't supply the motivation and energy to keep going.
No one can take the pain of a grieving person, and no one in pain should be lonely. Being there is powerful, what is said almost irrelevant. In my experience people in great pain appreciate company and less often want to deal directly with people.
There is no one cause, no ten causes, no 100 causes of these episodes, but there is one venue of action. Guns. Very much like having 10,000 kinds of intoxicating drugs, but only cars enable drunk driving. To say that one must deal with the first 10,000 causes before getting around to the sole and only cause of lethality is obviously silly. And without guns there would be no shootings like these. I repeat that because it seems to escape many people.
Outrage takes many forms, hand-wringing only one. Outrage is a form of energy, and change takes energy. Outrage is a form of fear, an acknowledgment that something valuable has been violated and a correction is in order. In a pinch I'll take one educated outraged person over 10,000 hand-wringers.
And, there's no sense in going on. This is such a simple issue that the folks who cannot see that guns enable shootings don't want to see that. And getting rid of guns would not mean mental health, but would keep some innocent people alive while more progress is made on mental health issues.
Flame » in reply to Sympathy vs. outrage.
As you point out they are not mutually exclusive. However, outrage can be constructive.
The whole thread (36 posts)
- It is such a relief to know that guns didn't kill these kids.
- Two very different statements. But they have the same effect.
- If we can accept the coming healthcare mandate then seeing your neighbors house searched should be easy. n/t
- Now there you go: reasonable suggestions.
- After reviewing all our comments below, methinks we are all missing the obvious.
- Outrage is very satisfying.
- Well, first, it's dereliction to not express outrage even if a solution can't be seen (yet).
- Sympathy vs. outrage.
- As you point out they are not mutually exclusive. However, outrage can be constructive.
- When you get your magic wand working, you will have to let me know.
- We both have the same goal.
- Please disregard that hiccup. If it's in our genes...
- If it's in our genes, and we
- We both have the same goal.
- When you get your magic wand working, you will have to let me know.
- Some perspective:
- As you point out they are not mutually exclusive. However, outrage can be constructive.
- Sympathy vs. outrage.
- Well, first, it's dereliction to not express outrage even if a solution can't be seen (yet).
- Stand on Zanzibar-- John Brunner, (1968)
- Second Amendment Pornography.
- Re: It is such a relief to know that guns didn't kill these kids.
