Originally Posted by
Shadow
The ironic thing is that if these kids died in a car crash, nobody would care as much as they do right now. Be real, you don't care how they died, you along with a lot of other people are just politicizing it because of guns because you have the chance to. Putting the issue of gun control aside, if people really cared about life, they'd take other leading causes of death in children more seriously. I'm not saying that I agree with having semi-automatic weapons, because they have no use and you can use non-semi automatics to protect yourself.
The main issue I have with this statement is that it doesn't acknowledge the nature of the gun debate. It is a BIG political issue because:
a) It involves individual's rights (to own a firearm)
b) It involves a problem a person or group is facing (17 high school students mowed down)
c) points a) and b) are against one another.
Something like the assortment of diseases, mental issues, and social and intellectual issues children face in their schools are SMALL political issues because there is no point a) like the gun debate has, just a point b). If schools want more social workers in schools, nobody's rights are infringed if that happens.
Since there is only a point b) to those issues, few people really disagree fundamentally on any of the opinions on what needs to be done for those issues. Most people would say "yes, we need better schools, more personal care for students, better education curriculum, better accommodation for special students, etc".
The only real difference people have is the priority and the application of solutions for those issues. In this regard, individuals and organizations just doing things independently on their own (such as charities, NGO's the administrative branches of governments, companies, etc)are far more likely to take charge in these issues than the probability of a sudden uproar in public support (since of course the public doesn't just suddenly become aware and interested in an issue that was rarely talked about for no reason).
Think of these things like choosing to exercise at the gym. Sure, you may have amendments to the way you accomplish your goal, but there fundamental principle of choosing to exercise at the gym is still there. You are staying on the same path, just making the route easier to maneuver. You aren't going to suddenly wake up and think "Oh no, I'm too healthy, I must eat chocolate every day now" (Of course this scenario doesn't apply universally so there may be some discrepancies in real life).
For something like gun control, just talk to Confluency then talk to Cursed. You'll quickly find some fundamental differences between the two's opinions. So it is always a hotly contested issue of what needs to be done and how it needs to be done. Since there is such a large degree of deviation in American's opinions on the matter because of how the a) and b) points are there and against one another, whenever the consequences of the country's overall actions or lack of actions are made apparent (such as a mass shooting), it should be expected that we will obviously talk about it.
Think of it like investing in a fishy company. Once you see a drop in price, you may want to reassess the situation because you think it might be better invested in a different company. There is a clear fundamental issue you have with the company. You are considering switching to a vastly different path.
