3 ms·
Not quite correct. When you're discussing the death of innocent people, children, etc. some tact is appropriate. I'm generally pro-gun but yelling at the top of
by wfo 10y ago
Not quite correct. When you're discussing the death of innocent people, children, etc. some tact is appropriate. I'm generally pro-gun but yelling at the top of your lungs about how great guns are to the parents of the victims of sandy hook is completely repulsive and something I'm sure you would never do.
Pro-gun ads are great but if they appear right after a haunting piece about a child killed through gun violence they are disgusting unless they are very, very tactful (which I have never seen from ANY ad). They shouldn't be placed there because it's offensive (and it does no favor to the pro-gun cause). I think that's on snap chat to avoid those instances always.
You could say hyper-emotional appeals about the victims shouldn't be done, and I'd agree with you, but they are done, so tact is important.
- briandear 10y agoTo take a bit of a devil's advocate approach, one might argue that seeing gun control ads in the context of Sandy Hook would be inappropriate because one could argue that more responsible people carrying guns could have prevented the tragedy. I am not supporting or opposing that viewpoint but it could be argued just as effectively as an assertion that gun control would have prevented the tragedy. I do NOT want to (or intend to) get into a gun control debate -- my point is that there a many ways to parse these things. When discussing the Boston Marathon bombing no advocacy groups were demanding a ban on pressure cookers. In France after the Nice attack, nobody was advocating for stricter truck licensing requirements or enhanced background checks on commercial truck renters/puchasers. My second point is that agenda groups hijack tragedy to achieve their own ends. As Obama's advisor Rahm Emanuel said, "Never let a crisis go to waste." In the context of a story, its editorial malfeasance to prevent all sides of a story from being expressed.
- wfo 10y agoThe problem is neither of your analogies are appropriate. A reasonable analogy would be ads cheerleading nuclear power after a nuclear power plant explosion killed thousands and permanently ruined a region of a country. And an ad just played that tried to garner sympathy for the children of women effected by the nuclear blast. A reasonable analogy would be additional regulations on airplanes after they killed thousands of people in a terrorist attack.
- vanattab 10y agoCould you explain why you think his two analogies are not appropriate? You simply state it as a fact and then go on to give two analogies that are far less appropriate in my view. Your first analogy is not even seem to be about deliberate use of technology to harm others but about some advertising after a horrible accident. While advertising is a theme in the original article posted it has nothing to do with the points the gp is arguing with his analogies. Your second while more reasonable is still I think less appropriate then the gp. A fully loaded 747 jet is far more leathal then a pressure cooker bomb or a commercial truck attack. Also many many people do think that that regulations/security in airports are heavy handed. As far as I can tell the only reason you view his analogies as inappropriate is they don't support the conclusion you want to draw. Also I would like to point out that accses/ownership to pressure cookers, trucks, nuclear power, and air-travel are not constitutional protected whereas gun ownership very explicitly is. I am all for talking about removing/modifying the 2nd amendment through the constitutional amedment process I just not for pretending like it's not there .