That's a non-trivial question, for two reasons:
1. Tragedy is a terrible driver for change. We get all caught up in emotions. We have a desperate need to fix it. We have a fear of it recurring. We want other people to Do Something. We completely lose track of risk analysis and rational discourse. And if anything raises an objection, then there's a litany of "Think of the victims!"
Of course, and unfortunately, tragedy is sometimes the only thing that penetrates past cynicism and inertia. Or, alternately, the only leverage available to shame others into doing the right thing (or Doing Something).
2. We have a great example of this in our recent history: 9/11. The tragedy of that day, and the fear of its recurrence, led to loud demands to Do Something, and gave the national security apparatus and the executive branch the leverage to push through "remedies" that had been proposed and rejected for decades. It short-circuited our debate about privacy and security and civil liberties, and it trumped anything in its path.
Now, in this particular, I think Bob Davis is a horse's ass, both because, (a) to my mind, there is a massive difference between background checks and magazine limits on the one hand, and warrantless wiretapping, torture, indefinite detention, and all the other offenses against our liberties that we've seen post-9/11, and (b) his approach and language was asinine (unless he was simply looking for publicity, in which case it was evil).
But, Bob Davis and the merits of gun control measures aside, the underlying point that tragedy shouldn't be what drives us to fix things, particularly in a blind frenzy, no matter the cost, is a valid one worth considering, regardless of the particular issue in question.
Reshared post from +Les Jenkins
Stay classy, Bob Davis.
Conservative Radio Host To Newtown Families: ‘Go To Hell’
Minnesota radio host Bob Davis is blaming the families who lost children in Newtown that they can “go to hell” for working to make him “lose my liberty.” “I have something I want to say to the vict……
Agreed. There is a valid point that "your tragedy does not trump everyone else's constitutional liberty." That point does not equate to "Go to hell."
Has anyone from the gun lobby actually put together a coherent argument as to why background checks for gun sales are such a dangerous threat to liberty?
The way they've jumped straight to ad-hominems suggest that they know they've lost the argument.
+Gary Roth – Well, if someone said, "I am coming to take your liberty away. We are founding a national church that you will be required to worship at," I would likely say "Go to hell, too." So I understand how it (may be) in principle, but in context it's certainly not helpful.
+Tim Hall – Aside from knee-jerkiness, the concern seems to be that background checks (a) will interfere with My Ability To Do Whatever The Hell I Want, and/or (b) will be used as a secret list of all gun owners so that the Gubbiment can direct their black helicopters and Youth Group Storm Troopers (with or without UN force support) to come and steal their guns and throw them in secret labor camps. Or something.
Both are couched in much more calm-sounding language, of course.