Among people who really scare me are those who are insistently turning the discussion of the San Bernardino massacre into a debate on gun control. I have nothing whatsoever against gun control or an outright ban on all objects that can shoot a bullet (as I said, this is not my issue at all.) But these people scare me because they practice Orwellian amnesia to a very disturbing degree.
Not a month ago we saw a far deadlier terror attack in Paris conducted by people associated with the same organization to which the San Bernardino killers pledged allegiance. The terrorists used Kalashnikovs in a country where buying a Kalashnikov is illegal. As we all know, that did not prevent the massacre.
Surely, it is not possible for people to have forgotten this so soon. Yet they keep repeating “gun control would have prevented the massacre, gun control would have prevented the massacre” in a way that, frankly, sounds deranged. There were bombs at the scene, indicating that the killers would have just blown the place to bits if that were their only option. There was nothing to have prevented them from creating an extremely powerful explosive device even if no guns existed on this planet at all.
Once again, yes, let’s discuss gun control but I’d prefer to see it done in a way that is less insane than “the weather is nasty today, the NRA must be to blame.”
People’s brains are so lazy that all they can do is reach for some familiar, comforting narrative whenever anything happens. If, at least, their repertoire of narratives were a bit more varied, but no, usually it’s just one or two broken records than are being put on for everybody else’s enjoyment.
This is why my blog is so popular even in the age when blogging is losing out to Facebooking and Tweeting. Readers who are desperate for something other than the robotic narratives delivered everywhere else and want something more intellectually challenging flock here.
Clarissa's Blog 
I manage to turn San Bernardino massacre into a debate on my favorite topic… 🙂 Just read this and had to share – see how tolerant the father of the shooter was:
Syed Farook, father of San Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook, has described his son as negatively “obsessed” with Israel.
“I told him he had to stay calm and be patient because in two years Israel will not exist any more. Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China and America don’t want Jews there any more. They are going to bring the Jews back to Ukraine. What is the point of fighting? We have already done it and we lost. Israel is not to be fought with weapons, but with politics. But he did not listen to me, he was obsessed,” Farook explained to US correspondent Paolo Mastrolilli.
…
Farook declared himself in complete despair and disbelief over what his son allegedly did. His daughters, Rizwan’s sisters, told The New York Times that they had seen no warning signs.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/san-bernardino-shooters-dad-he-was-obsessed-with-israel/
LikeLike
Let me now saddle my favorite hobby horse and say that it’s not like anybody could have expected this murderer ‘ s father to be a normal person, could they? These freaks are produced by families of freaks. It’s terrifying that the poor baby will be handed over to the fuckers who already raised one killer.
LikeLike
Here’s a poll on views of ISIS. Note the results from Pakistan Everybody else pretty much likes ISIS as much as the bubonic plague.
I was watching Rachel and she was wondering out loud why the family had 1)retained lawyers at all and 2)why one of the lawyers started going on about Sandy Hook. First of all, if the police think your relative’s act is terrorism and you live with them and they found pipe bombs in your house, you have to work to convince the law and public opinion you had nothing to do with it and had no knowledge of it. Second, maybe the guy spouted bizarre theories so people would focus on his statement and not the family?
LikeLike
American progressives start a big cry for increased gun control every time there’s a mass shooting in the U.S., so that was to be expected.
But in this specific situation (San Bernardino), there’s a second, unspoken reason why the liberals, including President Obama, keep stressing gun control, and ONLY gun control.
They want to downplay to the extent possible that this was a terrorist act with international implications, essentially a replay of Paris, because then they would have to acknowledge that we are losing the war with ISIS, and that serious military action is going to be required to defeat that enemy.
LikeLike
Well, if you’re an island nation and you have strict gun controls it does seem to have an effect.
And someone had earlier said on the BBC News that a Paris style attack was unlikely in Britian because it would be harder to obtain Kalashnikovs.
We had a terrorist attack in Britain today. One person stabbed and in hospital. The attacker tasered and arrested.
Yes, I’m looking at things through my own cultural lens and liberal views. Yes, this could be confirmation bias.
LikeLike
What, you didn’t have terror attacks in the UK that left 50+ people dead?
This isn’t about culture or views. These are facts of objective reality.
LikeLike
(If this comment appears twice, I apologize. WordPress seems to have eaten my first attempt at posting.)
American progressives always raise a fuss about gun control whenever there’s a mass shooting, so that was to be expected.
But in this specific case (San Bernardino), the liberals, including notably President Obama, keep repeating “gun control” and ONLY “gun control” for a second, unspoken reason:
They want to downplay as much as possible, and to deflect discussion from the fact that this was an act of international terrorism with ties to ISIS — because that would require an acknowledgement that we’re indeed at war with ISIS, and are currently losing that war because of our deliberate unwillingness to fight it effectively.
LikeLike
Alas, Obama will have very compelling arguments about gun control this evening. Here is a link to an advance copy of his address to the nation, provided by my confidential informant, the Teleprompter of the United States, the Very Honorable and Highly Reliable I.M. Totus.
LikeLike
Let me play devil’s advocate:
(1) There is no real debate over gun control in the US. No meaningful action has been taken. None is proposed, by anyone.
(2) The media hype on the issue is designed to scare consumers into buying guns and boost Smith and Wesson’s stock price.
The gun manufacturers have been the only winners here. There stock prices have been substantially ahead of the S&P500 index. It would make sense that their marketing dollars go to promoting this controversy, as it would be a more effective use of the money than any advertising they could buy.
From The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/08/graphics-americas-guns?zid=312&ah=da4ed4425e74339883d473adf5773841?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/ingraphicsamericasgunstokeepandbeararms?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/ingraphicsamericasgunstokeepandbeararms
LikeLike
Sad as it is, I think you are right. I don’t see how anybody but the gun industry wins from the hype. I suspect they welcome any such flare-up because it helps them sell more guns.
Thank you for this important comment.
LikeLike
Vic, it’s hard to play devil’s advocate when hardly anyone disagrees with your statements. 🙂
No serious politician (neither Obama nor anyone else) is really advocating any gun control “changes” other than “reasonable gun control laws” (which means what, exactly?) , “enforcing existing laws” (a no-brainer), and the amazingly bold “ban people on the no-fly list from purchasing guns” (which won’t pass because the no-fly list is so expansive and flawed). The loons on websites like “Salon.com” who advocate repealing the 2nd amendment know that no one is taking them seriously.
Sure, the gun manufacturers are doing everything they can to market their products. That’s the way all successful businesses work.
Obama MAY say something serious about advancing gun control in his speech tonight — but I’ll be quite surprised if he does.
I’m hoping that he says something serious about recognizing and dealing adequately with the threat from ISIS — not holding my breath on that, either.
But yeah, no argument with anything your comment says.
LikeLike
I detest spellchecker!
LikeLike