Eccentric Flower:199905/michigan and the tide
From Eccentric Flower
 |
may fourteenth michigan and the tide I like the double-barrel When Nonelvis and I wrote the mouth organ column about the Littleton shootings (I refuse to refer to them by the name of the high school, for reasons which should be obvious), we noted at the end that there were a few feeble signs that maybe the cycle would be different - that things would change this time. Certainly it seems like there's been a lot more media frenzy over this one for some reason. A lot of school shootings have taken place in the last five years. Why has this one suddenly lit the powder keg? Not that I'm complaining - anything to get the nation's attention - but I'm wondering why it's different. I'd like to think that everyone's finally reached breaking strain, that it was just a matter of whichever catastrophe happened to come at the right time - but I don't know if I believe that. The paper today noted that the Republican party, giving in to public pressure, reversed its position on a major gun-control bill, which includes (among other things) a proposal to close the loophole where guns are not subject to the same purchasing restrictions if bought at gun shows. Expect many pundits to make much of this, how gun control will be a significant part of political platforms for 2000 whether the candidates like it or not, et cetera. That's all good and well, but not everyone is being swept away by this tide of rationality. On page sixteen of my paper, across from the jump of the article above, I see that the state of Michigan is about to liberalize its concealed-weapons laws. The Globe notes that while other legislatures are tightening their gun-control laws, this has not taken hold in Michigan: In fact, the prevailing rhetoric in the Michigan Legislature argued that the Littleton tragedy makes the case for more guns, not less. State Representative Mike Green, the GOP sponsor of the bills, said, "I think [the tragedy is] a sad commentary for people being unable to defend themselves." Green and other gun advocates here say that putting more weapons in the hands of what [Governor] Engler's press spokesman John Truscott called "rational, law-abiding citizens" would act as a "deterrent." Excuse me? So, like, if the other kids had guns, they'd have been able to fire back? I will leave the rational response to James Brady, as I am too angered by this to do much more than hiss through my teeth: "Now is not the time for this debate .... We don't want our kids to believe that guns provide solutions to every problem." Amen, Jim.
© columbine |
