zlacker

>>KenCoc+(OP)
I can't wait until the part where we all don't talk about gun control and carry on as usual. Sigh.

EDIT: I see my post is being downvoted. I know that it may come across as insensitive to immediately leap to the gun control debate, but frankly I'm more angry than upset by this news. How many times does it have to happen? We have a good 48 hours of emotional outpouring and then everyone forgets it ever happened.

>>untog+M
What do you mean? That's usually the first thing people talk about when they hear about a shooting. There is always lots of talk. However, it's a divisive issue that many people feel strongly about and it's a constitutional issue.

>>dmm+21
Well, I mean talk seriously. Even in the presidential debates, both candidates ran away from a serious discussion on the topic. I know it's divisive, I know people feel strongly about it, but it appears that no politician is interested in starting a real debate.

>>untog+n1
Politicians talking about a topic is not the cause of political change, it's the result of one. There is currently a public consensus against your preferred policy position to the extent that it's disadvantageous for politicians to promote themselves with it. Changing that consensus won't lead to victory on its own, but it's a necessary precondition.

>>bcoate+R2
I think you have too much faith in the political process. The gun lobby ensures that there is no debate on gun control.

>>untog+M4
That is the political process. The gun lobby can deliver votes, the anti-gun lobby can't.

Support for gun control is extremely shallow, a lot of people are for it if asked a yes/no question but the activist population of people who would change their vote, volunteer time, or donate money is tiny.

>>bcoate+47
That is the political process. The gun lobby can deliver votes, the anti-gun lobby can't.

The gun lobby has money, which is available from bodies like gun manufacturers. There is no equivalent on the other side- there are no anti-gun manufacturers to give money.