I've seen it 3 or 4 times now and each time (up until the last) I have just scrolled past because you know what? It IRRITATES me!
Actually, it does far more than irritate me, it worries me AND it makes me question the people I know that feel it's appropriate to post it.
Finally I have caved and posted this (genuine) response:
"I've seen this posted several times now and I genuinely don't understand the point it is trying to make (that is to say, I understand what it is saying perfectly, just not the relevance). People kill people and you can't legislate for every eventuality so we shouldn't even bother trying? It seems both patronising and defeatist unless I'm missing something (am I missing something - or stupid ... )"
I'm hoping that someone will enlighten me because I can't see how or why anyone could (or would want) to use this atrocity as some kind of 'pro gun' propaganda (which is how it appears to be being used).
As I have said, I find it both patronising and deeply disturbing.
So AM I missing something?
AM I being stupid?
I honestly don't mind if it's either but I would like to understand exactly what the message is ...
5 comments:
I am not an advocate for removing guns, I don't like or own guns, but the vast majority of gun owners are responsible, probably 97%.
I am in favor of gun regulations that at least makes it more difficult for the 3%.
My comment to guns don't kill people, people kill people is; "Yes, but guns do greatly increase the productivity of people who kill people!"
Which is pretty much how I feel Joe. W
e have grown up in different cultures so I have to admit the thought of people being allowed to lawfully own guns does unsettle me and I prefer to live in a country where this doesn't happen.
Having said that I acknowledge that the vast majority of gun owners ARE responsible. It's the tone of this that frankly pissed me off, I don't need someone to pat me on the back and say condescendingly 'see, you can kill people with pretty much ANYTHING' because I KNOW that and I think it's totally inappropriate to use what happened in Nice in this way, inappropriate and disrespectful.
It's an NRA thing is my guess. They want to justify guns. The fact that statistics domestic shootings (and accidents at that)are enough to say "hey stoooooopid, if the gun is there it's a temptation. If it isn't there then you have to ask your partner to stand in the road whilst you run them over" - it's also a way to point a finger at Islam as something to be hated. Win-win for a redneck.
Also pretty much how I feel K. Like I said, I'm sure the majority of gun owners are responsible - having said that, if they ALL were then why would anyone feel the need to own one? Hanging a political statement on the coat tails of a tragedy is distasteful and abhorrent.
This annoys me too - I also have seen it. I feel like anyone wanting to own a gun should have a legitimate reason for doing so - eg you are a farmer in parts of Canada/America where there are dangerous wild animals that you might confront etc. I don't get it for sport and I don't get it for self defense. But that is a very personal viewpoint and everyone is entitled to their own thoughts. This little picture makes no real sense to me.
Post a Comment