Important headlines for May 23rd - Politics over solutions? Thy name is gun control
Bottom Line: These are stories you shouldn't miss and my takes on them...
Excerpt: A student walked into Santa Fe High School outside Galveston, Texas on Friday and began shooting his classmates, murdering eight students and two teachers.
The horrific shooting comes at a time of increased focus on gun policy issues nationwide, brought to the forefront by survivors of another school shooting in Parkland, Fla., just three months ago.
Following that shooting, a group of student survivors laid out a policy agenda consisting of five items intended to help reduce the toll of American gun violence. Those items include:
1. Dedicated funding for the CDC to research gun violence 2. Strengthening the ATF's ability to track and record gun sales 3. Universal background checks for gun purchases 4. A ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition 5. A ban on assault weapons, including a registration or buyback program for these weapons already in circulation
Hot Take: Completely sincere question that demands an answer. Are those pushing this agenda in the context of the Sante Fe shooting interested in actual solutions or simply a political agenda. Because there's an utter disregard for facts or clarity and this agenda of questions in the wake of Sante Fe doesn't have any basis in the conversation and isn't worth serious consideration of an intellectually honest person who wants actual solutions rather than an utterly unrelated political agenda. I'll demonstrate. Let's take the first question:
Dedicated funding for the CDC to research gun violence
First, and I've been meaning to say this for a while, is an absurd concept from the construction of the question. Let's be clear for a moment. Guns can't be violent. They're inanimate objects. People can be violent, and some violent people choose to use guns to carry out violence. The term is grammatical bastardization at best and intellectually dishonest generally. This question isn't to be taken seriously as it's constructed in an implausible and grammatically incorrect way.
Strengthening the ATF's ability to track and record gun sales
Did the Sante Fe shooter purchase the guns used in the attack? Nope. Would this thereby accomplish anything in the context of the Sante Fe attack? Nope.
Universal background checks for gun purchases
Not to be redundant but given that the guns weren't purchased by or legally possessed by the attacker – ill relevant to this conversation.
A ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition
Were the guns used in the attack using high capacity magazines? Nope.
A ban on assault weapons, including a registration or buyback program for these weapons already in circulation
And there's only one question with the potential to exceed the absurdity of asserting the need to study the potential violence of an inanimate object and it's this one. What the heck is an assault weapon? If you're so woefully uninformed of the topic that you can't specify what you mean how about at least taking the time to learn enough to actually state what you specifically would like to ban. If you're really about banning private ownership of guns generally how about at least having the intellectual honesty to so state rather than hiding behind a phrase instead.
As I depicted earlier in the week. There have been eight shootings inside of schools this year. Only in the case of the shooting at Stoneman Douglas did the attacker purchase and legally possess the weapons used. That's not to say there isn't validity to some of what's being advanced here. I fully support the universal background checks for example and support Florida's reforms being passed federally but in the context of Sante Fe's shooting? This is nothing but politics over issues and it's rife with intellectual dishonesty.