why are politicians avoiding gun control questions?

Question

Everything i read about the Virginia massacre has some politician saying that it's innapropriate right now to talk about gun control. Isn't right now the best time?
Stupid politicians putting their own careers first, they know how ridiculous theyll sound advocating gun rights at the moment.
I would like to hear your thoughts...

Answer 1

Gun control is such a taboo subject that it only ever gets mentioned in the wake of a tragedy like this one. And especially more than a year from the next election (you may remember, gun control was just a blip after the murder of those 6 little Amish girls; there were several bills proposed after Columbine).

The pro-gun lobby and its followers fiercely defend the right to bear arms for everybody no matter what - and it does not seem at all ridiculous to them to continue to advocate gun rights. It is big money for those who manufacture and sell guns, and gun enthusiasts are worried that the government might purge their gun collections and close down shooting ranges, tantamount to taking away their hobbies.

Gun laws for me are not a political thing, and I think we do need to talk about them openly until the day we can achieve the correct balance between rights and responsibilities. The problem as I see it, not just with gun advocates but also free speech and privacy advocates, is they want the rights without the responsibilities (in the case of privacy, had police had more background on the kid, he might have been more closely monitored - and would have regarded him, instead of the non-violent but gun-loving boyfriend of one of the victims - as the prime suspect) . But if you talk to people on an individual level, they are more reasonable; they know that bad stuff happens because the Constitution is often misinterpreted.

The NRA will point out, rightly, that most gun owners in America are responsible adults who have never committed and would never commit a crime. Same with free speech: the majority of people who exercise their First Amendment rights do not abuse them. But at the end of the day, we have to deal with the people who do abuse their Constitutional rights, and the only way I can think of is to impose COMMON SENSE restrictions. We are a mature, self-governing society now, not a bunch of rag-tag idealists rebelling against a tyrannical foreign power. I do not think the great Forefathers would spin in their graves for us to interpret their sage laws in a way that befits the modern era. I'm not saying we should abandon the Constitution, but that we should use it as a template which we can adapt to present and future situations.

As for gun control specifically, I note that in the past couple of days watching Fox News I have heard many of the regulars: O'Reilly, Geraldo, Shepard, Van Susteren - criticize Virginia's "lax" gun laws. In New York, where Fox has its US headquarters, gun laws are much tougher, but because of the (also constitutional) virtual autonomy of states, people from New York go to Virginia to buy guns and take them back to New York to commit crimes.

What we all need to do is to face reality and come up with sensible solutions - quickly. I do not want to have this debate with gun sellers and lobbyists - I want to have it with gun owners. I want to ask them if they would mind extra checks, like psych evaluations - before anybody can get a firearms license; I want to ask buyers, not sellers, why don't we have a very strict national standard for the sale and possession of firearms. And I tell you what, the vast majority of gun owners are going to agree, because they are completely clean and have nothing to worry about.

Answer 2

Look at the issue from the perspective of the policy makers..
They are hand-cuffed by the Constitution.
To take away guns would mean taking away the ability for some to defend their homes and businesses.
Hunters should have the right to hunt to feed their families.
Criminals would get them from somewhere (legally or not).

They would look like geniuses right now for advocating more money towards mental health care..
Let the mentally unstable show their emotions with harmless words instead of deadly actions.
We have 50 states with 50 different policies for gun control.. Make a National standard.
Plenty can be done.. and it starts with people like us.

Answer 3

These were real people who were killed. Any politician who spoke up now, would be very insensitive indeed. If the time comes it needs to be when a very upset public will be able to debate things logically, not emotionally. That time is not now. And I for one disagree with your statement:

"...they know how ridiculous theyll sound advocating gun rights at the moment."

This horrific event can be viewed from both sides of the coin. In my opinion, it's events like these that show why more people should carry concealed weapons.

For more information on how more guns will actually equal less crime check out John Lott Jr.'s book, "More Guns, Less Crime." You can't argue with facts.

Answer 4

I think that it is the perfect time to talk about gun control....just like all other massacres, time will pass and the fight for gun control will as well. Politicians do not want to make waves before we all go out and vote....the less they say about anything, for some reason, makes them look better in the poles.

Answer 5

nice sentiment that its "wrong to politicize a tragedy", but thats not the reason..

Politicians have politicized every tragedy in american history, it is a natural function of our societal structure. But, the reason they are backing off of this one (at this time) is because it leads down a road that they cannot win.

Regardless of circumstance, there will be a strong sentiment that you simply cannot unarm citizens during a time of war. And they are right. As long as we are at war, any attempt at gun control has an added argument attached....

Answer 6

Politicians usually are opportunistic parasites, but they're surprisingly restrained thus far. That's likely because they're all jockeying for poll position.

Nobody wants to LOOK like a lecherous parasite.

Not like it's a big secret anyway; Democrats want to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to own guns (do criminals care about legality?), while Republicans want to mitigate the assault on our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Answer 7

Because the Democrats are taking this tragic event to try anything to beat bush they dont care about those poor people in Virginia they just wont stop trying to get their liberal views out there and the media is also guilty they were talking about gun control more than the tragedy.

Answer 8

Politicians are in politics for the money/power despite what they tell you. The NRA has a lot of money and power. They're not going to change gun laws for fear of the lobbyists.

Answer 9

I smell a conspiracy.

Do you think that the government arranged for the killings? Maybe it was orchestrated for that very reason...to take guns away from law abiding citizens. The delay is just a smokescreen.

Answer 10

look I know its important certain **** happens in the real world most shootings happen with nut jobs freak a=out and kill people they want to take the out their homes but that's not going to happen because people like me who have to deal with violent associates where I work some come to work and they have warrents out for their arrest or they have cocaine runningwn their nose the management team doesn't care truth is people have to get their own lives together and no one is going to vote for **** like that until people feel better about them selvesand feel safe