Jon Stewart's plea for gun control (1 Viewer)

[seandroog]

Sorry i stink at embedding videos

Jon Stewart caught up last night following a lengthy hiatus and delivered a substantial riff on curbing gun violence in the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

The article
Jon Stewart's Gun Control Plea - Business Insider

Part 1
Scapegoat Hunter - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 01/08/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Part 2
Scapegoat Hunter - Gun Control - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 01/08/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[Cosmic201]

I realize he's just gonna get dismissed by most people but he pretty much sums up all of my thoughts on the subject.

 

[literature]

What's with this insistence on a "Conversation" that I keep hearing? Every anti-gun statement I hear tends to be an emotional plea about how important it is we have a Conversation. It's apparently very important to have this Conversation Right Now. Earlier on we couldn't have this Conversation; however, Right Now It Is Finally Time To Have This Conversation. When I agree to the conversation, I get more emotional pleas from people who have never seen or touched a working firearm in their entire lives.

If gun control is so important to Stewart, why does he spend all but 30 or so seconds of it making emotional pleas and mocking the easy targets of right-wing media outlets instead of making actual suggestions? I'd be happy to have this super-important Conversation people seem to want so much if it consisted of actual logical proposals instead of them yelling "we have to do SOMETHING!!!!!!!1" over and over.

Sad how 95% of anti-gun vitriol is just vague emotional whining and the remaining 5% is inept and often mechanically impossible nonsense about meaningless terms like "assault weapon."

 

[Cosmic201]

...
Anti-gun people have been trying to have a conversation on the growing concern of guns for decades now. If you haven't heard of it before it's because you haven't been paying attention. The reason they want it now is because of recent events that have shined a spotlight onto the problem. Sandy Hook is something to big to easily ignore like everyone did a couple weeks after most mass shootings.

The reason this conversation needs to happen is because it is a problem. Mass shootings are accelerating. You can list of a bunch of reasons for it, but one of the main contributing factors is the ease in which they had access to firearms. None of them had to search the black market. None of them was looking around back allies for an illegal gun. They simply went into gun shops and bought weapons used to murder dozens of people.


This is a problem. Gun rights people try to side step it as an issue. They are throwing up roadblocks left and right. Distraction is their game because they hope to sweep it back under the rug.

 

[Saintman2884]

Problem is, Cosmic, what some of these anti-gun people don't realize is that responsible gun owners might get unfairly targeted by stiffer regulations feel they currently have the momentum to push in lieu of this recent school shooting? It's a sign of the extreme polarization that important political/social issues can't be discussed nationwide because of suspecting alterior motives in everything coming from the other side---MSM outlets, most Americans' disgust with insincere political BS from both parties. Cosmic, we've become so cynical I think some now view "reasonable" and "fair" on gun control, abortion, combating hate speech vs. 1st Amendment limitations, as vague, obscure terms. You and I might agree on greater regulations maybe comparable to Canada's, which emphasizes greatly on gun registration, but unlike most EU countries, doesn't forbid owning as many guns as you'd like. I think you'd agree we don't need to emulate some of UK's draconian gun laws--where MI5, police authorities can search your home without a warrant or probable cause in some cases, if your suspected of having a blunted knife, or that in UK and France, authorities can detain suspects or temporarily deny them habeas corpus for up to 10 days.

Gun-control advocates, IMHO, make themselves part of the problem sometimes not because of their arguments, but that some of their solutions come off sounding bit too drastic, self-righteous in demonizing, oversimplying the issues surrounding the problem like Micheal Moore's recently said all guns, regardless of caliber, type, should be registered in a federal/state database just like cars and pet collars. That's another typical over-exagerration from Moore's that even his supporters admit, hurt him and give his enemies ample ammunition to discredit him and his beliefs---even though Moore is a NRA member.
Statements like that from Moore, other gun-control types play right into NRA's strategy of painting them being "more anti-gun, than pro-gun control" and I hope we can understand huge differences existing between the two if we ever want to have a honest, reasonable discussion in this country.

 

[literature]

...
Anti-gun people have been trying to have a conversation on the growing concern of guns for decades now. If you haven't heard of it before it's because you haven't been paying attention. The reason they want it now is because of recent events that have shined a spotlight onto the problem. Sandy Hook is something to big to easily ignore like everyone did a couple weeks after most mass shootings.

I understand all of this. What I don't understand is why they so often speak in vague emotional appeals and fact-averse conjecture instead of asking for specific policies to be changed. Why does the anti-gun crowd have such a hard time naming specific policies they want implemented? It is impossible for congress to pass a bill with "Something Must Be Done!" as its body.

I agree to have a conversation about gun control, and always have. However, the main thrust of the opposition's argument can not be "we need to talk about this!" if they are to be taken seriously. Their argument must be substantive.

This is a problem. Gun rights people try to side step it as an issue. They are throwing up roadblocks left and right. Distraction is their game because they hope to sweep it back under the rug.

I don't hope to sweep this issue under the rug. I am not guilty of wrongdoing and have nothing to "sweep under the rug." Neither do the millions who have similar views as me.

 

[Big_L]

...
Anti-gun people have been trying to have a conversation on the growing concern of guns for decades now. If you haven't heard of it before it's because you haven't been paying attention. The reason they want it now is because of recent events that have shined a spotlight onto the problem. Sandy Hook is something to big to easily ignore like everyone did a couple weeks after most mass shootings.

Honestly, I just think it's a typical knee jerk reaction. Most politicans don't really care, they just want to be seen as caring by the voters. If this was such a big issue, something would of been done by now. Wait. Something has been done. You just can't go a buy a gun without fillling out some paperwork and the FBI being called. Do you have any idea how many people are not authorized to purchase a firearm. So in theory, there's a lot of potentially bad situations stopped right there. The only downside to the background checks is if said individuals decide to legally purchase a firearm.

...The reason this conversation needs to happen is because it is a problem. Mass shootings are accelerating. You can list of a bunch of reasons for it, but one of the main contributing factors is the ease in which they had access to firearms. None of them had to search the black market. None of them was looking around back allies for an illegal gun. They simply went into gun shops and bought weapons used to murder dozens of people.

Are "mass shootings" accelerating or in this age of instant news, are the events being jammed into your TV, PC, or radio faster?

Well, this last shooting, the shooter was denied to legally purchase a firearm so he committed a felony, homicide, in order to get one. I think that kind of falls out of the realm of ease of obtaining a firearm. I mean if someone is willing to do all that in order to kill some innocents, the government can't legislate that motive away. The kid at VA Tech didn't go and buy from a store, he bought it off some idiot a few states away, if my memory serves me correctly. I think the Auroura CO kid did buy ammo off the internet, don't recall about the firearms. I know that a lot of guns used in crimes are either stolen or obtained by some other illegal means.

...
This is a problem. Gun rights people try to side step it as an issue. They are throwing up roadblocks left and right. Distraction is their game because they hope to sweep it back under the rug.

There is a problem. Unfortunately the problem isn't going to be solved by making it harder for righteous individuals to legally purchase a firearm. Banning certain firearms isn't going to solve the issue either.

 

[WhatDat]

What's with this insistence on a "Conversation" that I keep hearing? Every anti-gun statement I hear tends to be an emotional plea about how important it is we have a Conversation. It's apparently very important to have this Conversation Right Now. Earlier on we couldn't have this Conversation; however, Right Now It Is Finally Time To Have This Conversation. When I agree to the conversation, I get more emotional pleas from people who have never seen or touched a working firearm in their entire lives.

If gun control is so important to Stewart, why does he spend all but 30 or so seconds of it making emotional pleas and mocking the easy targets of right-wing media outlets instead of making actual suggestions? I'd be happy to have this super-important Conversation people seem to want so much if it consisted of actual logical proposals instead of them yelling "we have to do SOMETHING!!!!!!!1" over and over.

Sad how 95% of anti-gun vitriol is just vague emotional whining and the remaining 5% is inept and often mechanically impossible nonsense about meaningless terms like "assault weapon."

So, what do you consider a logical proposal?

 

[Zack Lee]

just to throw this out there, all the lunies coming out of the wood works to defend their rights for guns are screaming about Hitler and Stalin and Castro and worried about the Government. Clearly we have established a government that is so fail safe for overthrow that it can't even get anything done to be effective as a government anymore. You can get all the i's dotted and T's crossed on your dictator application but it still will never get through congress.

Now, as V-chip pointed out in a thread yesterday, we still have to worry about the computers so I am still on the fence with the issue as a whole.

 

[DesertKajun]

The nice thing is they can't do it. The 2nd protects all gun ownership so unless you can find a way to classify guns as something else you can't ban them without an Amendment change. Well have to get the 1st changed before the 2nd...

 

[Superfuzz]

The current stated policy of our government to push more gun control down the throats of law abiding citizens, while ignoring greater issues (debt ceiling, spending, term limits, education, etc) speaks volumes concerning the scope/scale of ignorance running rampant across this country.

Any attempt to amend the constitution while looking at only 1/10th of 1% of any given sample (in this case firearms related deaths) is foolhardy and not based on any clear/rational thought process. IMHO, that itself should bring pause to those who care to remember that ANY change to the Constitution of the United States should be carefully considered and intended to truly right an injustice and benefit the majority. Not any one faction, interest group, or media center.

I say these things as a veteran and military member of over 20 yrs service. I long ago swore to defend the Constituion of the United States and I hate to see one of its core principles attacked to benefit flimsy ideals, haphazard methodology/philosophy and personal agendas.

Now...I would be hypocritical if I didnt respect others right to differ. Lets just say we agree to disagree.

 

[brandon8283]

I understand all of this. What I don't understand is why they so often speak in vague emotional appeals and fact-averse conjecture instead of asking for specific policies to be changed. Why does the anti-gun crowd have such a hard time naming specific policies they want implemented?

I watched this on the DVR last night, and I remember Stewart offering multiple possible changes that could be the solution. The reason I remember this is that he offered a suggestion I hadn't heard before - only allowing assault rifle use at gun ranges. Of course, the usual smaller magazine stuff was offered, and other things. You just didn't watch the video.

 

[seandroog]

Gun-control advocates, IMHO, make themselves part of the problem sometimes not because of their arguments, but that some of their solutions come off sounding bit too drastic, self-righteous in demonizing, oversimplying the issues surrounding the problem like Micheal Moore's recently said all guns, regardless of caliber, type, should be registered in a federal/state database just like cars and pet collars. That's another typical over-exagerration from Moore's that even his supporters admit, hurt him and give his enemies ample ammunition to discredit him and his beliefs---even though Moore is a NRA member.

I don't see why it would be seen as a disgustingly over the top statement. I don't things need to go this far to the left, but if you think about the statement it isn't that insane. Dog collars? So a dog's collar has to be registered and yet a gun does not? Cars are registered so that the police can track them or that if they cause harm they can be easily tracked. Why can't guns be tagged the same way? If a person's main reason for owning a gun is legal protection, then he shouldn't be afraid of the government knowing how many guns he owns.

What's with this insistence on a "Conversation" that I keep hearing? Every anti-gun statement I hear tends to be an emotional plea about how important it is we have a Conversation. It's apparently very important to have this Conversation Right Now. Earlier on we couldn't have this Conversation; however, Right Now It Is Finally Time To Have This Conversation. When I agree to the conversation, I get more emotional pleas from people who have never seen or touched a working firearm in their entire lives.


If gun control is so important to Stewart, why does he spend all but 30 or so seconds of it making emotional pleas and mocking the easy targets of right-wing media outlets instead of making actual suggestions? I'd be happy to have this super-important Conversation people seem to want so much if it consisted of actual logical proposals instead of them yelling "we have to do SOMETHING!!!!!!!1" over and over.

Gun owners can be so touchy. I've owned a gun. I've shot many guns. But I don't feel like I need to have owned a gun to try and understand the issue. This isn't like cancer, where you can never understand what it is like until you've had someone close to you die from it. Many of our legislators make laws about abortion, illegal drugs, prostitution, alcohol and infinitely more things without ever having experiences with those issues (well besides prostitution probably).

Jon Stewart shows those wack jobs because:
1. it's good ratings and funny
2. because these aren't just wackjob hobos holding up signs that say "the end is near" as drivers by throw their garbage at them. These are people who have entertainment shows on news networks with millions of viewers. These are people who affect opinions. People who don't follow issues will believe mostly what they hear (on both sides) and i think it's very important to show these people as wack jobs. They actually affect people's opinions, and therefore affect political change.

The current stated policy of our government to push more gun control down the throats of law abiding citizens, while ignoring greater issues (debt ceiling, spending, term limits, education, etc) speaks volumes concerning the scope/scale of ignorance running rampant across this country.

Any attempt to amend the constitution while looking at only 1/10th of 1% of any given sample (in this case firearms related deaths) is foolhardy and not based on any clear/rational thought process. IMHO, that itself should bring pause to those who care to remember that ANY change to the Constitution of the United States should be carefully considered and intended to truly right an injustice and benefit the majority. Not any one faction, interest group, or media center.

I say these things as a veteran and military member of over 20 yrs service. I long ago swore to defend the Constituion of the United States and I hate to see one of its core principles attacked to benefit flimsy ideals, haphazard methodology/philosophy and personal agendas.

Now...I would be hypocritical if I didnt respect others right to differ. Lets just say we agree to disagree.

A nation's first service is to protect it's citizens. If guns are an issue with keeping it's citizens safe, then the government owes it to it's people to protect them. It isn't a small sample size. Many would say that the UK has a similar financial status to us. We have at least a 3 times higher rate of murder than they do. I know that many cite the fact that knife murders have gone up, but overall murder has still gone down since banning firearms.

Is banning firearms the solution? probably not. But what Jon stewart is saying is that every time someone tries to come up with a solution they're barked back with "2ND AMMENDMENT!" to the point that you can't even get a point accross.

How about this solution? If your fear is that some day you'll have to fight as a militia (north korea land attack, zombies, aliens, etc.) which is probably unlikely since i'm sure we'll be fighting a nuclear battle, have guns only available to those who have ever had military training. If you want to own a semi automatic weapon, then you must go through yearly mental checkups and renewal process similar to driving a car. If we are attacked by north korea, you have a better chance of protecting american soil as being part of a well trained militia than you do as the crazy tim robbins character in War of the Worlds.

If your issue is that you may want to overturn the US government if they get too full fo themselves, well then I don't know what to tell you. The US government shouldn't be interested in you having a gun.

If your issue is home protection, I think the odds are tiny that you'll be attacked by a Warriors-like gang of baseball bat carrying thugs that you'll need to mow down with a banana clip. 6-8 shots in a revolver should be plenty to hold off someone robbing your home.

Do I probably have the best solutions? I'd imagine not, but this is what left moderates or the left want, a discussion. And as long as either side is pandering to their voters they're going to take hard line stances that don't help anyone.

You have to admit that Jon stewart makes a good point. Cigarettes are legal, but we plaster "this may kill you" all over it.

People yell about how drunk drivers kill people, so we should be able to keep our guns! Well that's like saying prostitution is legal in nevada so I should be able to keep my weed! They aren't comparable. But if they were, we highly prosicute drunk drivers, even if you dont' harm anyone, and there are numerous campaigns demonizing drunk driving.

We live in a society that is meant to keep it's people safe as if they were idiots (don't burn yourself with coffee!) and yet these toys that are created to harm are available to pretty much anyone illegally or legally. When the stock market crashed it was time to talk finance. When ships sink it's time to talk tighter ship regulations. Chinatown bus here crashed and killed people and then NY strictly regulated to the point that many had to close down for shady practices. Jon stewart is right in that this is the time to talk about it. When tragedy happens is always the time to talk about it, guns are no different.

 

[Devildog]

You want to curb violence in the inner city where gun violence is most rampant? Invest in education and job/vocational training and lift people out of poverty. That is the biggest thing we can do to curb gun violence other than some sort of psychological evaluation in order to purchase a firearm.

Do we need to make sure mentally disturbed people don't get their hands on guns? Of course. Banning certain weapons isn't going to make a damned difference.

 

[DesertKajun]

You want to curb violence in the inner city where gun violence is most rampant? Invest in education and job/vocational training and lift people out of poverty. That is the biggest thing we can do to curb gun violence other than some sort of psychological evaluation in order to purchase a firearm.

Do we need to make sure mentally disturbed people don't get their hands on guns? Of course. Banning certain weapons isn't going to make a damned difference.

First you have to break the entitlement mentality to motivate someone to want an education. Its a lot harder then what you say. Why work or go to school when the feds will cut you a check for rent and food and you can hustle all day. Legalize and tax drugs for starts cause no inner city kid wants education to get a 20 buck an hour job when they can make hundreds an hour with no education on the street. Sadly I see this a lot in my hood and my wifes family. Takes awhile for kids to wake up and see the light for most its too late and they are dead or in jail.