Mark Steel on NRA reaction to Boston bomb. Genius

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... rnalSearch

Lets not dive into the logic of the gun grabbers, it does not even make sense on the surface. The guns those terrorists had in Boston: illegal.

I say we should do a back ground check on anyone trying to buy a pressure cooker. No pressure cookers for people on the no-fly list.

ruveyn

Apparently the bar for genius is set pretty low in Ireland these days.

Even if his logic is flawed, you've got to admit that is pretty funny.

Terrorist sets off bomb- "Damn Muslims!"
Terrorist shoots people- "MORE GUNS WOO AMERICA!"

He's not well-liked outside the left and Radio 4 in this country. They seem to like him.

I don't even know where to start with this.
I'd have to scrape the outer layer of stupidity off just to see what I'm dealing with.

Yeah, Steel is far from our greatest comedian, but he's one of the few famous comedians who has more than a surface interest in politics. His last few Independent columns have been received pretty well though, particularly his one on Thatcher.

Outer layer of stupidity, or more a case of you are unable to reply?

The only shooting I can think of even remotely recently here that would qualify as terrorism would be the Fort Hood attack, which the Obama administration is bending over backwards not to call terrorism. There's a world of difference between a crazy person killing children for reasons known only to himself, and malcontents setting off explosives for political effect.

You also have to keep in mind that the NRA is a gun lobby engaged in a protracted battle with an anti gun lobby, and as the party under attack they're going to take a defensive posture anytime any high profile violence of any kind occurs. Remember, Frank Lautenberg introduced a bill aimed at reloading components before any information on the bombs was reported, and hasn't withdrawn it in light of the fact that the explosive materials used appear to have come from fireworks. The NRA looks paranoid from an outsider's perspective because they're fighting an opportunistic opponent who will exploit and twist literally anything for political advantage, including the NRA's reaction to their attacks.

Interesting side note; terrorists in Israel used to use guns, but they kept getting shot before they could rack up a body count, so they switched to suicide bombers instead. Make of that what you will.

It depends how you define terrorism, doesn't it? Personally I think anyone who goes into a school and starts shooting people is trying to create terror using violence. They may have other goals too, of course. I might point out that we have no idea what the motives of the Boston bombers were. The suggestion that they are Chechnyan separatists bombing the US doesn't quite square up.

The NRA are the ones who exploit and twist literally anything to suit their own agenda, including statements made by their opponents, and people shooting other people. In every other developed country which has had the problems America is having with people shooting other people en masse, guns have been severely restricted and the problem has gone away- Australia being the best example, mass shootings just aren't a problem there any more. In America, when guns are used to do bad things, the pro-gun lobby cites it as a reason why guns are a good thing. The gun control lobby doesn't show up at shooting ranges where people are having harmless fun and use that to suit their agenda.

Also, I'm not sure if the humour of the article is being lost on people because they are autistic or because they are American.

Yes, if only everyone attending the marathon had a gun, so that they should start shooting at the then unidentified people in the crowd who had planted the bomb.

Actually, the NRA is the one attacking everyone else. By insisting that society be armed to the teeth, they advocate placing everyone in perpetual state of unnecessarily heightened danger. Every time some act of violence occurs, they (to use your term) "attack" the gun control advocates - after all, if only there'd been an evenly matched gun battle instead of a one-sided one, everything would have been ok, right? (because, after all, the "good guys" and the innocents never get hurt in gun battles) Its absurd. But regardless, nothing being done by either side really amounts to an attack - its all just words and its all advocacy for one side or the other.

Walrus, I'm going to get you a more detailed reply when I get back from work, but for now, answer me this:

Which country actually reduced their violent crime problem via gun control? I mean clearly and unambiguously, they had lots of violence, they introduced strict gun control, and the violence went away or was significantly reduced. No cheating by grouping gun violence separately, absolute levels of violence only.

Also, "terrorism" is best understood as using violence to foment change, not simply causing terror for it's own sake. I don't know of any of the recent mass shooters having an end game beyond killing a bunch of people.

Pure nonsense. Do you not get American news over in England? Or do you just buy this NRA boogyman 2nd hand? The NRA merely represents the will of the American people unlike say AIPAC or RIAA/MPAA who use money and backroom deals to serve a special interest. The 2nd amendment isn't an agenda. A NRA endorsement carries weight because Americans value the 2nd amendment and if you were familiar with American politics you know that they are way too liberal with those endorsements they give out since a lot of the time those endorsees are merely giving lip service to trick their constituency into voting for them. The NRA has been way too eager to appease the foaming at the mouth theatrics of the gun grabbers, many people consider the NRA to stand for 'Negotiate Rights Away'. The 2nd amendment is clear, our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no room for negotiation or compromise.

As for them exploiting and twisting, who are the ones pushing legislation before the dead have even been counted? Who are the ones that use the greiving families of dead children to push their agenda?The disgusting Michael Moore actually wanted authorities to release the pictures of the dead children at Newtown. You do not see the other side engaging in this emotional blackmail. They ignore facts and statistics and base their argument purely on emotion and their harebrained misconceptions about guns that they most likely learned from movies and TV.

Also, Dzhokhar stated their motivation as Islam and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.