4 ms·

> We have a problem with rushing to judgment. ... says a guy who, in the wake of a tragedy, rushes to say that we need more gun control.

mattdeboard 14y ago
When did he say that?
- monochromatic 14y ago
  > There a lot of things we need to have a “national discussion” about in America — gun laws and access to mental health care being the two most important . . . . We’ve decided that access to guns is more important than our safety, that more guns equals safety Sounds to me like a man who has made up his mind.
untog 14y ago
Where does he say that?
- monochromatic 14y ago
  > There a lot of things we need to have a “national discussion” about in America — gun laws and access to mental health care being the two most important . . . . We’ve decided that access to guns is more important than our safety, that more guns equals safety Sounds to me like a man who has made up his mind.
  - untog 14y ago
    He doesn't say that we need more gun control, though. He has described the situation as he sees it, but he hasn't prescribed an answer, aside from a "national discussion", which by it's nature involves an exchange of opinions, not an answer from on high.
    - monochromatic 14y ago
      Is there anyone who thinks that the weasel words of having a "national discussion" about guns could possibly mean anything other than "we need stricter gun laws"?
      - untog 14y ago
        Consider me deluded, then. To me, it says "I think we need stricter gun controls, and I wish to discuss my desire with the nation as a whole in order to create a consensus about what we will do".
        monochromatic 14y ago
        Politicians don't debate for the purpose of creating a consensus. They debate for the purpose of getting what they want. Sometimes a consensus is a necessary prerequisite for getting what you want, but in politics it is never an end in itself.
    - 1123581321 14y ago
      It's indeed a euphemism for gun restriction laws and an introduction of social pressure against gun owners to disarm advocated in national-level media. I am unsure of the origin but it seems to be a newly adopted phrase used to talk about gun restriction and mental health access in relation to the recent shooting, which is probably why you're only taking it at face value.
      - monochromatic 14y ago
        Obama was using this phrase before last week.
    - nsmartt 14y ago
      "We’ve decided that access to guns is more important than our safety, that more guns equals safety, or that it’s a settled political issue." This clearly shows a desire for stricter gun laws.
    - 14y ago
- astine 14y ago
  On the front page of his website: http://www.mattbors.com/ http://www.mattbors.com/
  - monochromatic 14y ago
    Ha! That too, hadn't seen that yet. Yeah, this guy isn't rushing to conclusions.
    - untog 14y ago
      There's a world of difference between not jumping to conclusions based on partial facts, and making conclusions based on known facts.
46Bit 14y ago
Similarly, bemoaning hassling a guy's Facebook profile by writing linkbait based on being a hassling Facebook friend.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
RivieraKid 14y ago
These two "rushings" are incomparable on many levels.
- monochromatic 14y ago
  Yes. Rushing to judgment about Ryan Lanza affects one person. Rushing to toss away gun rights affects tens (hundreds?) of millions of people.
  - RivieraKid 14y ago
    The way he put it is not exactly rushing to judgment. It was more like saying that "perhaps if there was greater gun control, this wouldn't happen". Also, probability that his sentence affects anyone is basically zero.
detst 14y ago
We've all had the entirety of our lives to come to our current opinion of gun control and have the remainder of our lives to change that opinion; no rushing involved.
- monochromatic 14y ago
  Many people have been in a rush these last few days.
  - detst 14y ago
    So? You picked out one thing that everyone has had their entire life to think about and conflated it with things that have happened since Friday. (That I can get a downvote for pointing that out shows how irrational people are on this issue. They can't take a breath and realize that I probably lean toward their side.)
  - hga 14y ago
    To quote the Chicago Godfather (Mayor), while he was working for Obama, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Note he's fighting tooth and nail to keep Chicago "subjects" disarmed (can't call them citizens if they're disarmed, at least by historical use of the word), and keeps robosigning mid-6 figure checks to the other side when he loses; here's the latest: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2012/12/chicagos_latest.php http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2012/12/chicagos_latest.ph...
ceejayoz 14y ago
> ... says a guy who, in the wake of a tragedy, rushes to say that we need more gun control. Given that these things happen with a depressing regularity, it's hardly rushing to judgement at this point to say "we need to have a discussion about guns".

mattdeboard 14y ago

When did he say that?

monochromatic 14y ago
> There a lot of things we need to have a “national discussion” about in America — gun laws and access to mental health care being the two most important . . . . We’ve decided that access to guns is more important than our safety, that more guns equals safety Sounds to me like a man who has made up his mind.

untog 14y ago

Where does he say that?

monochromatic 14y ago
> There a lot of things we need to have a “national discussion” about in America — gun laws and access to mental health care being the two most important . . . . We’ve decided that access to guns is more important than our safety, that more guns equals safety Sounds to me like a man who has made up his mind.
- untog 14y ago
  He doesn't say that we need more gun control, though. He has described the situation as he sees it, but he hasn't prescribed an answer, aside from a "national discussion", which by it's nature involves an exchange of opinions, not an answer from on high.
  - monochromatic 14y ago
    Is there anyone who thinks that the weasel words of having a "national discussion" about guns could possibly mean anything other than "we need stricter gun laws"?
    - untog 14y ago
      Consider me deluded, then. To me, it says "I think we need stricter gun controls, and I wish to discuss my desire with the nation as a whole in order to create a consensus about what we will do".
      - monochromatic 14y ago
        Politicians don't debate for the purpose of creating a consensus. They debate for the purpose of getting what they want. Sometimes a consensus is a necessary prerequisite for getting what you want, but in politics it is never an end in itself.
  - 1123581321 14y ago
    It's indeed a euphemism for gun restriction laws and an introduction of social pressure against gun owners to disarm advocated in national-level media. I am unsure of the origin but it seems to be a newly adopted phrase used to talk about gun restriction and mental health access in relation to the recent shooting, which is probably why you're only taking it at face value.
    - monochromatic 14y ago
      Obama was using this phrase before last week.
  - nsmartt 14y ago
    "We’ve decided that access to guns is more important than our safety, that more guns equals safety, or that it’s a settled political issue." This clearly shows a desire for stricter gun laws.
  - 14y ago
astine 14y ago
On the front page of his website: http://www.mattbors.com/ http://www.mattbors.com/
- monochromatic 14y ago
  Ha! That too, hadn't seen that yet. Yeah, this guy isn't rushing to conclusions.
  - untog 14y ago
    There's a world of difference between not jumping to conclusions based on partial facts, and making conclusions based on known facts.

46Bit 14y ago

Similarly, bemoaning hassling a guy's Facebook profile by writing linkbait based on being a hassling Facebook friend.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

RivieraKid 14y ago

These two "rushings" are incomparable on many levels.

monochromatic 14y ago
Yes. Rushing to judgment about Ryan Lanza affects one person. Rushing to toss away gun rights affects tens (hundreds?) of millions of people.
- RivieraKid 14y ago
  The way he put it is not exactly rushing to judgment. It was more like saying that "perhaps if there was greater gun control, this wouldn't happen". Also, probability that his sentence affects anyone is basically zero.

detst 14y ago

We've all had the entirety of our lives to come to our current opinion of gun control and have the remainder of our lives to change that opinion; no rushing involved.

monochromatic 14y ago
Many people have been in a rush these last few days.
- detst 14y ago
  So? You picked out one thing that everyone has had their entire life to think about and conflated it with things that have happened since Friday. (That I can get a downvote for pointing that out shows how irrational people are on this issue. They can't take a breath and realize that I probably lean toward their side.)
- hga 14y ago
  To quote the Chicago Godfather (Mayor), while he was working for Obama, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Note he's fighting tooth and nail to keep Chicago "subjects" disarmed (can't call them citizens if they're disarmed, at least by historical use of the word), and keeps robosigning mid-6 figure checks to the other side when he loses; here's the latest: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2012/12/chicagos_latest.php http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2012/12/chicagos_latest.ph...

ceejayoz 14y ago

> ... says a guy who, in the wake of a tragedy, rushes to say that we need more gun control. Given that these things happen with a depressing regularity, it's hardly rushing to judgement at this point to say "we need to have a discussion about guns".