I guess when a guy named Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez goes on a shooting spree, it's terror. When thousands of other Americans do it, we have either shrugs, oh wells, or fucking crickets. Check out the headline on Fox News
TERROR STRIKES CHATTANOOGA
Kuwaiti-born gunman opens fire on Tenn. military centers, kills 4 Marines
And Drudge...
MUHAMMAD SHOOTS UP MARINES IN TENNESSEE; 4 DEAD'MOTIVATED BY ISLAM'
And any of the other right wing sites...
Sense a pattern yet?
Oh, and were there guns at either of the military facilities? Y'know...the whole gun free zone dealio...
If conservatives are serious about stopping guys like Abdulazeez from shooting people, maybe we should refine our gun laws. Once again, another example of someone who not have been allowed to own a gun had we passed Manchin Toomey.
1 comment:
Andrew Rosenthal at the New York Times has an interesting point:
Every time there's a Sandy Hook or Columbine or Charleston where a white boy kills a bunch of innocent civilians Republicans tell us that laws will never stop shootings.
But every time a Muslim shoots someone in the military they demand a whole raft of new laws to let the NSA spy on us, new laws to hassle immigrants, new laws with mandatory sentences, and so on.
So which is it? Are laws worthless or a panacea?
The truth is, guns kill about 30,000 Americans a year, while Muslim terrorists kill maybe 10 or 20 a year (usually with guns).
No law is going to be 100% effective. That's just common sense. But properly crafted laws can reduce the number of guns available to nut jobs, wife beaters and terrorists, without inconveniencing responsible gun owners.
Improving the effectiveness of gun laws by 50% would save 15,000 lives, including the 5-10 that would be saved by preventing Muslims from getting guns.
Even if we changed the laws to make it impossible for Muslims to kill Americans, it would only save 10 or 20 lives a year.
If you're really pro-life, you should be looking for solutions that save the most lives.
Post a Comment