Is it time yet?

It’s always claimed after a national tragedy that “it’s too soon” to talk about whatever needs to be discussed.  With 50 dead and 53 injured, is it time to discuss ways on how to minimize the threat to the safety of ALL Americans within the confines of our own country?

After reading the comments of numerous political asshats, I think this is all I’ll post for now.  I do have a job to protect, and I don’t want to say anything out of anger that will jeopardize my employment.

To those affected by the shooting at Pulse in Orlando, please accept my heartfelt condolences, prayers, and wishes for healing.  At this point, I don’t think there’s anyone that was hurt or killed that I personally know, but there were numerous people in the club that were either family or friends to people that I know or talk with online.  This attack feels much more personal because of that.

Advertisements

30 thoughts on “Is it time yet?

  1. If people are saying that we need a cooling off period so that the discussion will be more rational and less emotional, and that in the meantime it’s OK to say how we feel but premature to talk about solutions, that sounds reasonable enough to me.

    Like

    • We should have long ago outlawed from civilian possession and use the kind of high-capacity, rapid-fire military weapons that make mass shootings so easy.

      But we also have to find ways to prevent people from obtaining weapons illegally, which may not be so easy.

      The main thing in the way of gun reform is the paranoid Republican base, which is strong enough to dominate most Republican primaries. I’m not sure offhand just what we can do about this.

      Like

      • Outlawing weapons won’t do away with the ideology that drives terrorism. Until we realize that we have to neutralize the ideas and ideals that fuel fanaticism, nothing else will stop it.

        We’ve seen groups from Islamic Jihad in the 70s and 80s all the way to ISIS now. The names and people change, but the underlying ideals and messaging is the same.

        Like

        • I was not claiming that gun reform would eliminate terrorism. I was responding to a post which focused on the lack of meaningful gun reform.

          Real gun reform would probably reduce the body count from acts of terrorism and from acts of simple craziness.

          I agree that gun reform would not eliminate terrorism. The two are really separate issues, although they would affect some of the same events.

          Like

          • There’s not going to be any meaningful gun reform in this country. If nothing was done after Sandy Hook, where young kids had their lives ended way too soon, then I seriously doubt anything will get done in our lifetime.

            I don’t think real gun reform would reduce the body count either other than cut down on the number of successful suicides in this country. I think that eliminating the biases and prejudices that keep segments of society away from bettering their economic station in life would do more than taking away a single round of ammunition.

            Gang violence and other things generally revolve around economic issues more than anything else when you get to the root cause issues. Just my view though.

            Like

  2. “After reading the comments of numerous political asshats, I think this is all I’ll post for now.”

    Good move. General Michael Hayden, past CIA Director, said this morning talk of excluding Muslims, keeping them out of US, other talk that makes Muslims feel separate and unequal, makes the problem of home-grown terrorism worse. He called the comments of Trump after the attack “prejudiced, simplistic and frankly inaccurate. To the degree we drive the individuals into further isolation, to that degree we increase the threat.”

    Like

    • Exactly! I heard that part of this kid’s problem was that he thought coworkers were picking at him about his religion.

      I listened to Trump today for his entire speech just to see if I could understand exactly what his supporters see. What I came away with was the image of a kid kicking a red ant hill now and wondering why he’s getting the crap stung out of him later on. A Trump presidency will be their greatest recruitment tool.

      Like

    • Trump like the gun manufacturers whose stock prices went up yesterday…oh the irony there…want to sow discord. It gets them both what they want. Trump needs fear to be elected and the gun manufacturers love money. More fear the better in their worlds. Rational people need to get control of our government. Obviously they aren’t in charge now.

      I was on a cruise to Alaska last week with several Canadians. I got asked several times about what in the hell is going on down here. I asked if they would love a new neighbor…me. Vancouver is wonderful.

      Like

      • Hope you enjoyed the cruise. I’ve wanted to do an Alaska cruise. If I had a dollar for every time someone asked me about the political atmosphere at work, I could have retired long ago.

        It worries me that some people see fear as the only way to operate. Our society is quite open, and we will always be vulnerable to attacks because of this. Instead of instilling and stoking fear, I would love to see politicians peddling the ideas that make us such a great place to live to counter the extremism that makes people want to attack us.

        Like

  3. Reply to Brosephus says:
    June 15, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    We need to consider other things in addition to biases and prejudices that also keep segments of society away from bettering their economic station in life. We need to make sure we are not making it too hard for employers to offer entry level jobs. We need to cut away the red tape that prevents people from starting pushcart businesses. We need to make sure that government programs that supposedly help are not actually creating perverse incentives.

    Like

    • There are entry level jobs available. Some people get the “too qualified” response when trying to get hired. I’ve heard that one many times myself. I don’t buy the red tape argument either because people can start a business if they want to. Often, it’s finances that prevents people from starting a business. Furthermore, starting a business is for naught if there’s no demand for the product.

      That red tape is sometimes the only thing keeping us from killing each other with the ecoli or salmonella tainted invisible hand. It’s documented that self-regulating businesses is a pipe dream.

      Like

      • There are some entry jobs available, but are there as many as there should be? And is this true consistently over time?

        Red tape can be a serious hindrance, even if some people manage to fight their way through it. (With help?) The exact extent probably varies with the jurisdiction and the type of business.

        Like

        • There’s no need for entry jobs for everyone, hence the term “entry job”. They’re temporary by nature and used as a stepping stone to something better.

          Red tape has existed as long as this country has. A hindrance by any other name is still the same. There were blue laws, segregation laws, and all other kinds of roadblocks to people starting a business. This country isn’t meant for everyone to start a business, and not everyone in this country is capable of opening and/or operating a business.

          Like

          • I didn’t say there should be entry level jobs for everyone.

            Blue laws wouldn’t be that much of a hindrance to someone starting a business. Segregation laws DID stop some people from starting businesses and were very wrong to do so. I didn’t say everyone should be able to start a business.

            Like

          • Your response sounds like you think everyone should have an entry level job as well as sounding like everyone should be able to start a business.

            Blue laws would adversely affect someone starting a bar that would be unable to serve alcohol because of blue laws. Most are gone now, but there are still places that prohibit or severely restrict alcohol sales.

            Like

        • That keeps Typhoid Mary from setting up shop and killing people before others catch on and stop buying her food.

          It’s not about making it hard to start a business as much as it’s ensuring that people don’t use start-up businesses to screw people over and disappear into thin air. Contrary to popular belief, we don’t live in an altruistic world and there are people who will screw you over at the first opportunity.

          Like

          • Once a Typhoid Mary is identified, she should be forbidden to work in food and be subject to severe penalties if she persists.

            Some scrutiny may be appropriate to guard against the rare occurrence of someone like Typhoid Mary, but we need to make sure it does not become too burdensome. In the absence of clear principles saying what government should and shouldn’t do, red tape tends to grow and grow over time, becoming more and more of a hindrance for weaker and weaker reasons.

            Customers and vendors should exercise some responsibility to be cautious about dealing with new businesses, especially if run by unknown people.

            When people commit fraud or embezzlement and then disappear, government should try to find them, and has a good chance of success.

            Like

          • If there’s a minimum hurdle that Mary has to cross to be in business, it’s reasonable to think she’s not going to kill people when she opens.

            Scrutiny will always be required otherwise, the economy becomes one big crap shoot. The principles of what government should or should not do are already in place. It’s the people tinkering with those principles that cause the problems, whether they’re asking for more government or less. Sometimes it’s best to just leave things alone. We can’t do that because there’s no fun involved.

            Like

  4. Reply to Brosephus says:
    June 20, 2016 at 8:41 am

    You’re misreading what I said.

    By “blue laws” I though you meant laws against being open on Sunday. You’re right that laws against liquor prevented certain kinds of businesses from operating, and were very wrong to do so. Even where liquor is legal, restrictive liquor licensing laws tend to wrongfully restrict how many people can have liquor businesses.

    Like

  5. Reply to Brosephus says:
    June 20, 2016 at 8:47 am

    There are practices of what government should or should not do in place, but no clear principles, and the practices keep shifting in the direction of more and more government.

    All sorts of things are in place, but it doesn’t follow that they should be. White supremacy was in place in the South for a very long time, and those who wanted change were smeared as troublemakers. It still holds sway in some places.

    Like

  6. Ah, blue laws. I remember when no retailers were open on Sunday – be they drug, grocery, department stores or even gas stations. Not to mention liquor stores! I don’t miss those days.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s