More Reasons Why Rosie is Sure The Conneticut School Killings Are A Sure Sign Of The Death Of Civilization

So, which country is starting to talk about tightening gun laws? And which country is hell-bent on loosening gun laws? Jesus Christ, I can imagine Vic Toews going “Only 20 dead kids? Pussy. We can do better than that.”

Oh yeah. The NRA is now employing the time honored strategy of brave, brave, brave Sir Robin when they’re faced with the handiwork of their own creation. Meanwhile, there’s a good chunk of Americans angry that President Barrak Obama had the temerity to interrupt their viewing pleasure Sunday night.

Face it. When black or aboriginal people carry guns, and shoot people,┬áit’s crime. When Arabic people do it, it’s that crazy Muslim religion. When white people do it, it’s an isolated incident.

About Stephen LaRose

2006 winner of the Canadian Association of University Teachers's Award of Excellence in Journalism for a bunch of prairie dog stuff. Invited into the best homes in Regina. Once.

24 Responses to More Reasons Why Rosie is Sure The Conneticut School Killings Are A Sure Sign Of The Death Of Civilization

  1. Barb Saylor December 17, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

    Connecticut
    Barack

    Talk is cheap. The President made promises he never even attempted to keep. No wonder people are disillusioned, to put it mildly.
    The third paragraph is over-exaggerated, also to put it mildly.

  2. Snowfish3000 December 17, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

    Fuck you, Rosie. Your opinions are about as irrelevant as the Commodore 64. This post reminds me too much of when you were blaming Sarah Palin for the Arizona massacre.

    My God, are you even lucid today? Our hearts should be bleeding for all of the victims in this tragedy, not starting inflammatory discussion that leads nowhere.

    I would happily kick you in the taint; worst hipster wannabe, complete amoral, immature, self-hating degenerate you.

  3. Bronymous December 17, 2012 at 3:59 pm #

    “The President made promises he never even attempted to keep.” Really? He doesn’t need approval from others in Govt to get things done? Pretty sure that Obama is all for whatever needs to be done so crap like this doesn’t happen again, but his hands are tied in a lot of ways with lobbyists, pro-gun republicans etc.

    Also, “bad idea t-shirts” ads? hubba hubba

  4. Simpleton driver December 17, 2012 at 4:06 pm #

    for those interested, here is a little cartoon from Michael Moore’s anti-gun movie ‘Bowling for Columbine’

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGYFRzf2Xww

    priceless…imo

  5. Lionel Mandrake December 17, 2012 at 4:27 pm #

    @Snowfish3000: Please define “inflammatory discussion.”

  6. Barb Saylor December 17, 2012 at 5:07 pm #

    Come on, Snowfish; yo’re better than that.

  7. Barb Saylor December 17, 2012 at 5:08 pm #

    And I usually spell “you’re” better.

  8. Stephen Whitworth December 17, 2012 at 5:11 pm #

    That’s a pretty harsh response to Rosie, Snowfish. I’m curious: what kind of assault rifle would Jesus tote? I’m an atheist and I don’t own any guns so I have no idea but you’re a big fan of the guy (Jesus, not Rosie) and apparently a supporter of lax gun laws so you must have SOME idea.

    Expecting people to NOT talk about gun control laws and gun culture pathology right now is a political and possibly self-interested thing to do. But gun control IS part of the conversation along with adequate access to mental health services.

    It is not disrespectful to talk about this. We talk about terrorism after an attack. We talk about air safety after a plane crash. We will talk about gun control in the U.S. and reflect on the loss of the gun registry in Canada after appalling calamities like these.

    If that causes problems for conservative Christians desperate to reconcile their love of firearms, small government and whatever other antisocial nonsense they’ve got a boner for, too bad.

  9. Talbot Fresh, Jr. December 17, 2012 at 5:28 pm #

    BTW, why has no one looked into whether the September 11th terrorists were mentally ill? Maybe Osama knew just where to recruit from.

    We assume they were America-hating, radical Islamicists. Maybe they were just mental patients from the U of R (University of Riyadh.) Like Rosie said, white/westernized people with guns are getting the “mentally ill” excuse, which is probably almost always right, while Arabs and such get the “religious fanatic” treatment, which may not always be true. IO’m pretty sure the “Beltway Shooter” was mentally ill, despite describing himself as a recent convert to Islam.

    In a larger sense, you may want to examine religion in general as an illness, tho that may be a little facile…

  10. Snowfish3000 December 17, 2012 at 5:53 pm #

    I’d like to apologize to Rosie over my last post…all this 24 hour coverage on CNN has put my nerves on edge, and perhaps I will wait a few seconds longer than normal before I click the “submit” button.

  11. ron December 17, 2012 at 5:56 pm #

    So War,will be back page news espicially now in Syria is gonna get levelled out with the CT. Massacre?

    Only 100,000 dead in around 1 year?

  12. ron December 17, 2012 at 6:00 pm #

    kids being targets ANYWHERE on this planet, is always shitty news.

  13. Barb Saylor December 17, 2012 at 6:29 pm #

    @9: If a military-style operation is to be undertaken, what you don’t want is flakes: you want the sincerely dedicated and trainable who won’t flinch and who can act in concert with others. There are many such people, and only a certain perspective would call them mentally ill.
    Further to Mr. LaRose’s ill-thought-out blurt: not all Muslims are Arabs, and vice versa.
    @3: I’m by no means the only person to take this view. An American commentator interviewed on CBC Radio before supper put it just the same way. She’s also very much an optimist: she cited the strides that have been made in areas such as civil and gay rights in her lifetime (and, I might add, the fall of Communism), and she thinks that the tipping point may have been reached.

  14. Talbot Fresh, Jr. December 17, 2012 at 8:08 pm #

    @10: Ahh, the good old disease of “3, 2, 1, SUBMIT” I know it well and am in recovery; I have a friend who works for the prov govt in Finance who still suffers. In fact, he recently awoke at 2am, emailed his boss about how he wanted out of a certain project that wasn’t “playing to his strengths.” He was given a mild-mannered reply that apparently tried to re-word his issues into how he was contributing his strengths, but still fears the cumulative effect of one too many hastily submitted, early-morning/late-night stream-of-consciousness emails.

    @13 No, but in media/popular culture, Arabs=Muslims, if not radical Muslims.

  15. Stephen LaRose December 18, 2012 at 8:20 am #

    Barb re #13: I know Muslims and Arab peoples aren’t interchangeable. But for most people — especially in the West who don’t pay attention to these things — the terms are interchangeable.

  16. Yossarian December 18, 2012 at 10:23 am #

    In fairness, the state of Connecticut requires registration of firearms and it didn’t stop the horrific massacre.

    Which avers to the better point – gun control is what is needed – not gun registration.

    Registries don’t prevent crime. They exist largely for the purpose of commerce and insurance. In respect to automobiles, the requirement to register one’s vehicle only takes effect if it is operated on a public highway (city street etc). We all agree that drinking and driving is a social scourge – but nobody suggests that the provincial automobile registries are a tool to reduce impaired driving.

    That being said, no responsible gun owner should have a problem with enhanced licencing regimes. If a person has committed a violent offence, especially a domestic assault, Parliament should take that individuals ability to possess a firearm away – for a period of time. As a mandatory and not discretionary penalty.

    There has been an overall reduction in firearm homicides in Canada over the past 40 or so years. Those decreases can be linked with the addition of a federal licencing regime that mandates standards for the use and storage of firearms. Simply put, our system works. And doesn’t need to be watered down.

    The LGR debate is a smoke screen issue that takes away from real gun control.

  17. Barb Saylor December 18, 2012 at 10:43 am #

    @14 &15: I think you presume too much about how people other than yourselves think. And Mr. LaRose, people have been paying attention since 9/11.

  18. Dave December 18, 2012 at 12:09 pm #

    @Yossarian(#16)- Great points.

    As a responsible gun owner, I have no problems with enhanced licencing.

    I also didn’t have as much of an issue with the process of registering my firearms as other people did. I agree that the registry isn’t the most effective tool for preventing crime, but I thought that the process was actually easier than registering my vehicle. The one argument in favour of the registry was that police would be able to respond to domestic issues with the knowledge that the home contained a firearm (or multiple firearms). Some police officers have countered that they approach each response with the mentality that there could be firearms present regardless of what the registry said. I don’t really know which argument carried more weight, but now that the registry is gone it doesn’t particularly matter one way or either.

    I still think that more gun control in the USA is an inevitability, and is long overdue in some parts of the country. My only concern is that it would be implemented without some serious debate and consideration. Historically, politicians have made headway with things like an assault weapons ban (which is a largely a nonsense term)but have ignored handguns. The consequence of this is that rifles have a series of often arbitrary restrictions despite only accounting for roughly 4% of homicides in the USA in 2005. Handguns (which accounted for 75% of the 10k homicides in 2005) are left unchecked. It’s been a matter of easy wins and good politics at the expense of good policy.

    Continuing down that road runs the risk of preventing another high profile massacre but still allowing the 7500 or so other homicides to continue.

  19. Talbot Fresh, Jr. December 18, 2012 at 12:19 pm #

    @17 Au contraire, Barb, most of the people I am exposed to are politically correct. All I have to do is scratch the surface of the dirty masses to find sentiment runs far worse that assuming all Arabs are Muslims. In general, I’d say since the ’90s, society has taken a massive step backwards re: racism. Racism has become like mainstream music; it’s far less pervasive in our lives, but just as present.

  20. Sad December 18, 2012 at 1:39 pm #

    “Responsible” gun owners. Responsible for what exactly? Murdering innocent lives for a “sport”. You want a sport? Go toss on some skates, or kick around a soccer ball and show some real talent. Guns have been created for malicious murder, and if you advocate guns for any reason… well you need a serious reality check. I oppose all gun ownership, and sadly those who share my view point are few and far between.

  21. Barb Saylor December 18, 2012 at 1:48 pm #

    @19: Whoa, “dirty masses”? Sounds pretty classist. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this topic, Talbot, as my experience is far different than yours.
    @20: You’re entitled to your opinion, Sad, but the total and irrational condemnation of guns (and does this include firearms used by aboriginal hunters?) is one reason why people who want reasonable restrictions on firearm ownership and use have such an uphill battle. It’s the kind of like the failure of the stadium petition.

  22. Barb Saylor December 18, 2012 at 2:25 pm #

    “It’s kind of like…”

  23. Dave December 18, 2012 at 3:01 pm #

    @Sad (#20)- Actually i just own a gun to keep the King of England out of my face.

    All joking aside, I suspect that the 400 or so Olympic athletes who competed in shooting events at the 2012 Olympic games would disagree that guns only are used by talent-less people intent on malicious murder.

    You’re entitled to your opinion, Sad. Just keep in mind that extremists on both sides are the biggest barrier to reasonable people developing rational gun policies in USA and Canada.

  24. mb December 19, 2012 at 12:08 am #

    NRA broke their silence with a response.
    They want to cooperate???

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/18/us-nra-facebook-gun-rights-newtown-connecticut.html?cmp=gc

Leave a Reply