Judging from Post editor Sally Buzbee’s introduction to the project, as well as from my own reporting, the paper talked to dozens of survivors and family members and weighed the enormous range of their opinions about this issue to craft the feature. It was so much better than I was expecting that it initially blinded me to the way it was bad. But bad in a kind of routine way: The media, as well as certain kinds of activists, believe we need to be presented with graphic, grisly evidence to grasp what are simply facts. This grisly evidence, they posit, will change hearts and minds.

It will not. Upwards of three-quarters of American voters support almost every commonsense gun law. And we know why political leaders haven’t heeded their call: the gun lobby, and its disgusting political servants. But the Post tried, anyway, with its multimedia “Terror on Repeat” project. I won’t impugn these journalists’ motives. I’ll assume they are good. I’ll just tell you what I saw, and why I would like to spare people seeing the same thing. Especially survivors.

  • @NotBillMurray
    link
    57 months ago

    Pretending that the sheer number of “assault weapons” (which is a painfully imprecise word as it is) in the US to any other country is either disingenuous or just foolish. From a cursory search there are about 20 million AR pattern rifles in the US. Let’s say we banned the sale and did a stupendously effective buyback that got say 65 percent of them. I don’t think it would be that high, but it is what it is. Let’s say we give people 500 each for them (no way I’d sell mine for that, but anyway). We’ve just spent 6.5 billion just on one style or semi automatic rifle and there are still 7 million of the goddam things. Compare that to Australia, which confiscated about 650,000 guns total.

    • spaceghotiOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -67 months ago

      So what you’re saying is that we can’t simply ban a single weapon type, we need to ban them all in order to effectively end mass shootings in the US.

      Okay! I’m on board with that, if that’s what it takes.

      • @NotBillMurray
        link
        67 months ago

        I’m saying that it’s logistically impossible to solve via legislation (on guns) alone. We need to address the systemic problems that we face as a country, and until we do that the violence will continue. I’m all for gun control measures that will make that violence less destructive, but a flat ban will not fix it.

        • spaceghotiOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -67 months ago

          Which then brings us back to how every other country that has tried it has obviously failed. Because obviously, numbers don’t scale.

          But please, continue to blow more smoke over the issue. Tell us again how we’ve done nothing, and we’re all out of ideas.

          • @NotBillMurray
            link
            97 months ago

            You’re right, I’ve not presented any potential solutions. All I’ve said is fund public health initiatives, address the systemic issues that are leading to violence, and enact sane limits on firearms sales.

            But please, go ahead and continue misrepresenting my argument if it makes you feel better.

            • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
              link
              fedilink
              -17 months ago

              Except the party that wants to get rid of guns wants to do those things, and the one that doesn’t want to get rid of guns doesn’t want any of those things, and people still vote for the latter because they want guns.

              • @NotBillMurray
                link
                47 months ago

                I vote Democrat because there’s nobody viable who’s farther left. I’ll admit it’s frustrating as a gun owner because so many Democrats are tremendously ignorant on the issue, but I agree with them a hell of a lot more than Republicans.

                I just want non insane or just plain ignorant gun laws and a decent social safety net, is that too much to ask?

                • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
                  link
                  fedilink
                  27 months ago

                  Considering a decent social safety net will “hurt the economy” and “prevent job growth” it is in fact too much to ask

                  • @NotBillMurray
                    link
                    27 months ago

                    Won’t someone think of the poor multinational corporations that might lose half of a percent of their annual earnings. Hell, they might not make their yearly 5 percent growth targets!

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                27 months ago

                No, the party that wants to get rid of guns says it wants to do those things, but doesn’t actually follow through. In states and cities with Democratic veto-proof super-majorities, most of the things that Dems say they want still doesn’t happen. Take, for instance, affordable housing. We can all agree that good housing that was cheap enough to afford for anyone working full-time–including at minimum wage–is a good thing, right? So we shouldn’t have any problem changing the zoning in an already residential area to allow high-density affordable housing, right? And yet, as soon as the cards are down, Dems turn into NIMBY. Sure, we want to house homeless people, but not near me. Reform criminal justice, but also arrest these black people trying to have a barbecue in a public park. Decriminalize drugs, but arrest the homeless junkies near my Whole Foods.

                And I will point out that the states that have Deocratic super-majorities–California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc.–still don’t adequately fund all the shit that would actually solve the underlying problems that lead to violence. (I know for a fact that Illinois has moved money away from public schools to charter and magnet schools, while the public schools in Chicago are literally falling apart.)