|
Why does this Oregon mass shooting put the ball in the gun owners court? The same arguments that were put forth in previous discussions of gun control are repeated here. The latest incidence doesn't put the ball in any court. It just keeps the ball bouncing.
And then the ball eventually starts to be knocked into other courts such as poking at religion. And we get the usual contradictory swipes such as "what tool is used to control people for political domination" which disregards the opposing question "which tool (same one) is used to resist or escape from political domination. Or "what grinds my gears is anyone who thinks what they believe would be better for someone else" from someone who has said that if everyone followed his two commandments--be cool and don't be a jerk--the world would be a better place. Or implying that some Catholics, similar to Muslims who cheered 9/11 in the shadows, are cheering attacks on planned parenthood in the shadows--as if there is something peculiar to religious believers that is not shared by the rest of humanity. For example, some atheists cheering, in the shadows, various attacks on Christianity. It is probably a trait shared by most people to cheer for the home team, and be glad to see the enemies get poked. It is not a tenet of Christianity or atheism to wish harm to others, but there are so-called Christians and atheists who secretly cheer that harm.
None of that stuff is putting the ball in any court re gun control.
There is, however, a shadowy agreement that the problem goes beyond guns. Nebe says "it is the American way of life that is the problem." Jim in Ct says "It's culture and values." Spence wants to get at the "root cause."
It seems to me, however, that the court that gun control is being played on is not the gun owners court, nor any real agreement on true responsibility, but the court of politics. Who can milk the issue for votes, for power.
|