Sandy Hook Elementary School Shootings

[SMiLE Brian]

Hey, I have an idea! Why don't we be good liberals and start a Meals-On-Wheels type program where we'll deliver SmileySmile posts and threads to OSD who's been segregated to the Hoffman Board and he can ferry his responses back over through us?

This is something Jesus would do, right?

OSD needs some Holiday cheer! We need to start a protest movement to get OSD back on smiley smile.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Hey, I have an idea! Why don't we be good liberals and start a Meals-On-Wheels type program where we'll deliver SmileySmile posts and threads to OSD who's been segregated to the Hoffman Board and he can ferry his responses back over through us?

This is something Jesus would do, right?

OSD needs some Holiday cheer! We need to start a protest movement to get OSD back on smiley smile.

Yeah, we can't have the powers that be on this board behaving like common politicians allowing corporate power to influence policy

[SMiLE Brian]

Hey, I have an idea! Why don't we be good liberals and start a Meals-On-Wheels type program where we'll deliver SmileySmile posts and threads to OSD who's been segregated to the Hoffman Board and he can ferry his responses back over through us?

This is something Jesus would do, right?

OSD needs some Holiday cheer! We need to start a protest movement to get OSD back on smiley smile.

Yeah, we can't have the powers that be on this board behaving like common politicians allowing corporate power to influence policy

I say Pinder for president with each moody running different parts of the government.

[Jason]

Oh wait...if guns are inherently evil and the means used to accomplish everything the government does is by threat of a gun, doesn't that make government evil?

Check and mate, statists. Come back tomorrow with another one.

[Letsgoawayforawhile]

Let's all just agree to disagree. Everyone already has their mind made up. Let's Be Friends!

[Bean Bag]

Oh wait...if guns are inherently evil and the means used to accomplish everything the government does is by threat of a gun, doesn't that make government evil?

Check and mate, statists. Come back tomorrow with another one.

Well... they've done it a'gin, skeeter.  Our forum friends done up and changed directions a'gin.  Just like that!

Now, instead of banning the guns, they're entertaining the idea of killing the people.  You know... guns don't kill people -- people kill people.  What now!?  They want to eradicate 'em all.  Even themselves!

Why... they're just too fast for us, pa!     

[Jason]

You know what? Life is dangerous. Life is a sexually transmitted disease that always results in death. It has no other purpose except to kill people. BAN IT!

[Dunderhead]

Whenever there's some hot button political issue like this, these, I don't know what you'd call them, little, diplomatically phrased, sound-bite friendly "plans" are floated by pundits and spread like wild-fire among the people. "infrastructure improvement", "improve social safety nets", stuff like that, in this case it's about banning "assault weapons" or "high capacity clips" coupled with talk about "improving access to mental health treatment". But these dogmatic, un-nuanced, designed for public consumption proposals are so empty and meaningless.

It's not at all clear how any of these carefully engineered sentiments would translate into legislation, and when the government finally gets enough people thoughtlessly echoing them the resulting bill will be written and agreed upon behind closed doors and will ultimately be completely ineffective in accomplishing the sorts of reforms the public actually had in mind with their charming little politically-correct phrases.

Sure, ban assault weapons, though no-one is really sure what exactly an assault weapon is, and any definition will (and has) easily be circumvented by vendors and manufacturers. Ban "high capacity clips" (which, by the way, is a nonsense statement that confuses clips and magazines as interchangeable...) but how exactly does that work? There are millions of these things floating around, and banning just their manufacture for instance, does nothing to take the existing ones of the market or prevent their manufacture abroad. So to actually do anything you'd likely have to outright ban the possession of such magazines, a policy which is next to impossible to unilaterally enforce and which undoubtedly be used selective by the federal government to target specific groups of people for political ends. And of course, at the end of the day, converting many rifles to fully-automatic is next to child's play, and can be done by anyone without the government's consent using simple materials.

And when you point all this out, that there's absolutely no logistically adequate course of action to meaningfully accomplish any of this, the counter argument is essentially little more than "so what? we might as well try", which in my mind is completely absurd. There will be fallout, trying is not harmless. People's lives will be affected, people will go to jail, billions of dollars will be spent, hundreds of thousands of man-hours hours will be consumed in litigation, and when a sniper takes his bolt action rifle and climbs to the top of a clock tower and murders a dozen innocent people, and we realize that it was all a naive pipe dream and watch as the law lapses into oblivion or is overturned by the supreme court, we'll have done worse for ourselves than if we had simply done nothing.

If you can't promise a statistically significant effect resulting from proposed legislation, if you can't demonstrate, through reasoned analysis, that the social and economic costs will be fully offset by the benefits, 'we might as well try' is not a convincing argument for doing anything.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Whenever there's some hot button political issue like this, these, I don't know what you'd call them, little, diplomatically phrased, sound-bite friendly "plans" are floated by pundits and spread like wild-fire among the people. "infrastructure improvement", "improve social safety nets", stuff like that, in this case it's about banning "assault weapons" or "high capacity clips" coupled with talk about "improving access to mental health treatment". But these dogmatic, un-nuanced, designed for public consumption proposals are so empty and meaningless.

It's not at all clear how any of these carefully engineered sentiments would translate into legislation, and when the government finally gets enough people thoughtlessly echoing them the resulting bill will be written and agreed upon behind closed doors and will ultimately be completely ineffective in accomplishing the sorts of reforms the public actually had in mind with their charming little politically-correct phrases.

Sure, ban assault weapons, though no-one is really sure what exactly an assault weapon is, and any definition will (and has) easily be circumvented by vendors and manufacturers. Ban "high capacity clips" (which, by the way, is a nonsense statement that confuses clips and magazines as interchangeable...) but how exactly does that work? There are millions of these things floating around, and banning just their manufacture for instance, does nothing to take the existing ones of the market or prevent their manufacture abroad. So to actually do anything you'd likely have to outright ban the possession of such magazines, a policy which is next to impossible to unilaterally enforce and which undoubtedly be used selective by the federal government to target specific groups of people for political ends. And of course, at the end of the day, converting many rifles to fully-automatic is next to child's play, and can be done by anyone without the government's consent using simple materials.

And when you point all this out, that there's absolutely no logistically adequate course of action to meaningfully accomplish any of this, the counter argument is essentially little more than "so what? we might as well try", which in my mind is completely absurd. There will be fallout, trying is not harmless. People's lives will be affected, people will go to jail, billions of dollars will be spent, hundreds of thousands of man-hours hours will be consumed in litigation, and when a sniper takes his bolt action rifle and climbs to the top of a clock tower and murders a dozen innocent people, and we realize that it was all a naive pipe dream and watch as the law lapses into oblivion or is overturned by the supreme court, we'll have done worse for ourselves than if we had simply done nothing.

If you can't promise a statistically significant effect resulting from proposed legislation, if you can't demonstrate, through reasoned analysis, that the social and economic costs will be fully offset by the benefits, 'we might as well try' is not a convincing argument for doing anything.

Then we'll all just do as you would do and do absolutely nothing...... Whew, that was easy..... The world is chock full of big talkers and who know best from the comfort of the basement chair they're sitting on. But, hey: this IS a  message board which exists for that very purpose, so I guess the problem is really mine.


But TTBB is right (not with his "checkmate" bluster) .... Life is inherently dangerous and bad things/bad people will happen and it's best to just hug your kids, hug your friends, and try to enjoy what you can of it....

[Dunderhead]

Considering the only person to blame for this, the person who actually did it, is dead, I really don't know what people believe we should be doing.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Considering the only person to blame for this, the person who actually did it, is dead, I really don't know what people believe we should be doing.

Maybe if there had been some Beach Boys records in this kid's house rather than guns...... Seriously..... Or at least more Beach Boys records THAN guns....

[Bean Bag]

Fantastic post, Fishmonk.  Totally indisputable.  Let me tell you, Pinder... perhaps this will help...

I understand people's need to cry out and seek answers -- it's natural and part of our logical mind.  Our brains are wired to seek logic and reason.  Attempting to digest completely illogical and reason-less events, probably fries people's noodles.  Perhaps emotion kicks in, to fill the gap.  One or the other.

Either way... many are left susceptible (or start out that way, for all I know.)  Half-baked ideas, spur of the moment, emotional decisions get made.   Don't read the fine print! Just buy the car, this deal ain't gonna last forever!!!!  (Think algore and his "must act now! the debate is over!" pitch.)  Yes...sadly, there's "vultures" out there to pray on the susceptible.  Exploit them.  I hope that's not a shock to anyone.

Still with me?

But here's the deal.  Here's why they do it.  In addition to building up the leftist coalition and directing hatred towards the right... eh hmm ...don't you know, these events are great ways for bills to get bounced around (in both chambers) pickin' up some "amendments."  Yessir!  Pork!  When it's all said and done... the original purpose is long forgotten and gadzooks! -- billions are missing!  Which is the whole point from the start.  This is why they do it, folks.  Their only objective is to steal money.  I don't know how else to put it.  This is the system they have.  Period.  Let me say that again... this is the system they have, this! is! how! they! do!! it!!!!!!!  Watch them and call me a liar!!!!

Disarming the populace is just a plus.  A big plus, yes... absolutely.  I'd rather rob unarmed people if I were a cowardly schmuck too.  I know I'd feel better if I were a thief and I knew that the people were unarmed.  Wouldn't you?  Be honest...

 

So yeah... I know it's inconceivable to many... this is how we've been trained (which was one of my last points in the Four More Years thread).  We've been trained to think "NOTHING good can happen without a BILL! Someone, please pass a f**king bill!!!  Ban something!!! Please!!"  But, yes for nothing to come out of Washington, would be ideal in this case.  Laugh all you want.  Hate me.  It's the truth, br--- I mean, pal.

Feel empty now?  I'm sorry...

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Oh, stop with the psych 101! Spare me please!

As long as you're only applying such logic to "the left" you're on a fool's errand. But I DO hear ya.... Can we leave it at that?

I'm all for owning a gun for personal protection. I lived through Richard Ramirez' "Nightstalker" rampage! The summer of 1985 was utterly terrifying! My folks bought a gun and I'm glad they did because I was actually able to get to sleep some nights due to this fact.... There are various sides to every issue and being able to see more than one is a virtue and I will not be ashamed of it.

[Dunderhead]

I'm strongly against Republican policies and have been critical of Republican politicians throughout these threads, as have many of the other more conservative posters.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I'm strongly against Republican policies and have been critical of Republican politicians throughout these threads, as have many of the other more conservative posters.

Indeed Fishmonk, but a lot gets lost in the translation with various threads and responses flying about and emotions causing fingers and keys to rattle!!!

[18thofMay]

Oh, stop with the psych 101! Spare me please!

As long as you're only applying such logic to "the left" you're on a fool's errand. But I DO hear ya.... Can we leave it at that?

I'm all for owning a gun for personal protection. I lived through Richard Ramirez' "Nightstalker" rampage! The summer of 1985 was utterly terrifying! My folks bought a gun and I'm glad they did because I was actually able to get to sleep some nights due to this fact.... There are various sides to every issue and being able to see more than one is a virtue and I will not be ashamed of it.

Sorry to interject but we as in Australians find it almost laughable that you feel that "carrying" a weapon is for protection.. I feel almost sick having to say this and as much as I hate to over generalise, why do you (Americans) have such a thirst for guns/violence? Why do you think it is normal to walk the streets with a gun? I think it is so in-fused into your psyche that you honestly know no better. You seem to have no rational concept of how the rest of the world percieves your Country anymore!

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Oh, stop with the psych 101! Spare me please!

As long as you're only applying such logic to "the left" you're on a fool's errand. But I DO hear ya.... Can we leave it at that?

I'm all for owning a gun for personal protection. I lived through Richard Ramirez' "Nightstalker" rampage! The summer of 1985 was utterly terrifying! My folks bought a gun and I'm glad they did because I was actually able to get to sleep some nights due to this fact.... There are various sides to every issue and being able to see more than one is a virtue and I will not be ashamed of it.

Sorry to interject but we as in Australians find it almost laughable that you feel that "carrying" a weapon is for protection.. I feel almost sick having to say this and as much as I hate to over generalise, why do you (Americans) have such a thirst for guns/violence? Why do you think it is normal to walk the streets with a gun? I think it is so in-fused into your psyche that you honestly know no better. You seem to have no rational concept of how the rest of the world percieves your Country anymore!

Maybe because I lived through a summer where a guy was going around slithering into houses, shooting the male in the head and raping the woman next to his convulsing body and then either killing her or dragging her around the house by her hair and sometimes raping her young child in front of her...... Yeah, isn't America wonderful? But you should be asking your question to anyone but me. I was just trying to find a way to somehow relate on some level and I did. But the idea of a bunch of anti-government yahoos with assault weapons scares me just as much as anything the government or any random criminal might do.

BTW, I spent a year in your country as a teenager and I miss it every day.

[Dunderhead]

Oh, stop with the psych 101! Spare me please!

As long as you're only applying such logic to "the left" you're on a fool's errand. But I DO hear ya.... Can we leave it at that?

I'm all for owning a gun for personal protection. I lived through Richard Ramirez' "Nightstalker" rampage! The summer of 1985 was utterly terrifying! My folks bought a gun and I'm glad they did because I was actually able to get to sleep some nights due to this fact.... There are various sides to every issue and being able to see more than one is a virtue and I will not be ashamed of it.

Sorry to interject but we as in Australians find it almost laughable that you feel that "carrying" a weapon is for protection.. I feel almost sick having to say this and as much as I hate to over generalise, why do you (Americans) have such a thirst for guns/violence? Why do you think it is normal to walk the streets with a gun? I think it is so in-fused into your psyche that you honestly know no better. You seem to have no rational concept of how the rest of the world percieves your Country anymore!

 * A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

[rab2591]

Oh, stop with the psych 101! Spare me please!

As long as you're only applying such logic to "the left" you're on a fool's errand. But I DO hear ya.... Can we leave it at that?

I'm all for owning a gun for personal protection. I lived through Richard Ramirez' "Nightstalker" rampage! The summer of 1985 was utterly terrifying! My folks bought a gun and I'm glad they did because I was actually able to get to sleep some nights due to this fact.... There are various sides to every issue and being able to see more than one is a virtue and I will not be ashamed of it.

Sorry to interject but we as in Australians find it almost laughable that you feel that "carrying" a weapon is for protection.. I feel almost sick having to say this and as much as I hate to over generalise, why do you (Americans) have such a thirst for guns/violence? Why do you think it is normal to walk the streets with a gun? I think it is so in-fused into your psyche that you honestly know no better. You seem to have no rational concept of how the rest of the world percieves your Country anymore!

This country is FULL of disgusting violence (rapes, murders, break-ins, kidnappings, beatings, etc). I'm sure you've been on the receiving end of a gang ass kicking? It sucks. I'm sure you've heard bullets whiz over your head and plink on the ground next to you? That sucks too. I'm sure you've had friends nearly die because of people trying to carjack them with guns? It doesn't happen everyday, but it happens.

I'd feel pretty damn vulnerable if I didn't have a weapon to protect myself with in this country.  

America is FULL of guns. Of course it is inane that we have so many. Of course I find it disgusting that we feel we need to carry them around. But don't laugh at it. Don't put us all in one boat of violent ignorant assholes. Most of us who own guns keep them in a closet or in a nightstand hoping we never have to use them.

*sorry for sounding so harsh haha. I'm tired and a little worn out. America is just a different culture than most countries....On the flip side it completely baffles me that European countries and Australia ban weapons - I can't imagine living in a country without that right! But like I say, we're just of different cultures.

[Bean Bag]

Oh, stop with the psych 101! Spare me please!

As long as you're only applying such logic to "the left" you're on a fool's errand. But I DO hear ya.... Can we leave it at that?

I'm all for owning a gun for personal protection. I lived through Richard Ramirez' "Nightstalker" rampage! The summer of 1985 was utterly terrifying! My folks bought a gun and I'm glad they did because I was actually able to get to sleep some nights due to this fact.... There are various sides to every issue and being able to see more than one is a virtue and I will not be ashamed of it.

Apologies for the psych 101 tutorial.  But in true 101 fashion, it applies to everyone.  That was my point -- I too understand that basic concept, the need to do something in the face of these tragedies.  That applies to all of us.  I meant no offense by making that clear.

That's why I put "still with me?" in there, since I assumed you'd bail on my post after said clarification.  If you haven't already, please read after "Still with me?" cuz that's the whole deal, right there... in black and white.   

I think you and I do agree on a lot of this.  I hope everyone reads that section... cuz it really does explain what's actually going on.

[18thofMay]

So when exactly did you go past the "tipping point" where fear breads fear and that in turn breads violence? You live in a paradox where the very protection you seek only enforces the fear you wish to be protected from. I feel for our American cousins, I had no idea a land so "free" is so full of fear!

[Chocolate Shake Man]

This country is FULL of disgusting violence (rapes, murders, break-ins, kidnappings, beatings, etc). I'm sure you've been on the receiving end of a gang ass kicking? It sucks. I'm sure you've heard bullets whiz over your head and plink on the ground next to you? That sucks too. I'm sure you've had friends nearly die because of people trying to carjack them with guns? It doesn't happen everyday, but it happens.

I'd feel pretty damn vulnerable if I didn't have a weapon to protect myself with in this country.  

America is FULL of guns. Of course it is inane that we have so many. Of course I find it disgusting that we feel we need to carry them around. But don't laugh at it. Don't put us all in one boat of violent ignorant assholes. Most of us who own guns keep them in a closet or in a nightstand hoping we never have to use them.

*sorry for sounding so harsh haha. I'm tired and a little worn out. America is just a different culture than most countries....On the flip side it completely baffles me that European countries and Australia ban weapons - I can't imagine living in a country without that right! But like I say, we're just of different cultures.

This is why the gun issue often falls along class lines, which is why I think the gun issue is more of a distraction from the more important class discussion. But, yes, you are correct, the United States is ultimately a more violent country than just about every other industrialized nation and that mostly comes down to its gun laws - per capita, the United States homicide rate is higher than any other first world country and a large majority (about 2/3rds) of those homicides are from fire arms. So, yes, if you restrict access to guns you ultimately make the country safer, and this is important since obviously real lives are at stake (that is, if one really cares about real lives, rather than participating in some intellectual exercise) but you have to get past the enormous propaganda efforts that have indoctrinated a fairly large part of the population. But again, I do think one runs the risk of being a classist by simply pushing an anti-gun agenda - one has to account, of course, for the reason why guns are used and accessed at the level that they are and much of this comes down to a population that have mostly been left to fend for themselves.

[hypehat]

Oh wait...if guns are inherently evil and the means used to accomplish everything the government does is by threat of a gun, doesn't that make government evil?

Check and mate, statists. Come back tomorrow with another one.

Rather a statist than an 'anarchist'  

I'm guessing your answer to this whole thing would be something along the lines of letting the free-market sort it out. Possibly more de-regulation, because the reason why guns are so dangerous is because of the oppression of the state to possess body armour and an assault rifle or some half-baked bullsh*t like that? In a corporate world (which you frequently point out is a catalyst for your views), that's so very anarchist of you. Never mind that the free-market is out to screw you, it's the X to the Y of the state. Down with government, all that nasty accountability and regulation really gets in the way of corporations commiting gross tax fraud, banks fixing interest rates and driving up mortgage prices. That's what you're repping for, right?

You're a very binary thinker, you know that? You should try a shade of grey some time, it might help you out.


To try and meet you halfway, I'm utterly disgusted on a daily basis by what my government does too, but the way things are today is a direct result of neo-liberal policy running from the 1980's, and to cut off the entire political spectrum as useless due to one ideological strain that gained credence (and has waxed and waned in popularity this century as the effects have sunk in especially among the working class, who now have  no mainstream political representation thanks to it) seems rash. There is more to government than the last thirty years, and things will change again. But abolishing government in favour of a total corporate free-market state would seal the deal for the neo-liberalism which I guess you despise as much as I do.

[guitarfool2002]

Interesting points all around.

I need to mention something which is the core of some thoughts I added to the Depardieu tax thread this week.

Hypocrisy.

I think there is something valid which can be nuanced out of what TRBB posted. Taking it to a level where we can discuss actual people doing actual things rather than a concept named "government", which can be used to represent many things, can we look at a few like Mayor Bloomberg in New York?

I heard someone mention this the other day: If Bloomberg were standing strong on his convictions, why does he not remove the guns from his armed bodyguards? That person's belief was that in theory, Bloomberg saying what he says about guns in private hands while arming his own security details might suggest Bloomberg feels he as a person is more important or more worthy of protection than the average resident of New York whose legal right to own a gun for protection might be questioned.

I personally feel that theory isn't realistic or logical, but it does hit on some very important questions which people have a right to ask. Bloomberg invites a lot of these questions on himself by promoting himself as he has done, as some kind of a moral authority who seeks to "regulate" behaviors, people, or activities which *he* feels would make the lives of the general public in New York City somehow better.

Witness his absurd high per-pack taxes on cigarettes, his banning of large sodas, his regulations on how and where restaurants in NYC need to list menu items, his recent attempts to gather groups of city workers and agents into a "task force" in order to eventually eliminate someone's right to smoke in their own apartment, etc. One of his key issues is in fact gun control, and it's difficult not to think he feels someone who owns a gun legally and is responsible in doing so is morally equivalent to those criminals who own guns illegally and use those guns to commit crimes.

So if someone were to ask him "Mr. Mayor, would you advocate the same gun regulations on your staff and your security as you would advocate for the general public?", it would be a fair question. And in doing so, is he placing his own self-worth and value as a person above that of the average NYC resident, and suggesting using guns for protection or having those around you protect you by the use of firearms...as a deterrent and as a means of reacting to an immediate threat...is a right more deserving of those in government than the public at large?

I can think of one example that got me thinking about these issues years ago, and it came from listening to the Howard Stern show in the 80's and 90's. Rosie O'Donnell was a major gun control advocate and outspoken de facto public spokesperson of the movement at that time. She was involved in the "Million Mom March" which was advocating strict gun laws, and she was also seen a public rallies and protests at various corporate offices and locations for companies like K-Mart, whose store policies on selling ammunition were being called out.

Then on Stern's show one day - and he may have gotten this info elsewhere - they revealed that Rosie is going around making this much noise against guns and advocating more regulations against legal guns while employing the services of an *armed bodyguard* whose daily job involved carrying a firearm as both a deterrent and protection for her family.

The case was made, even beyond the apparent hypocrisy of the situation, did Rosie genuinely feel that she had more of a right to armed protection than a citizen who might be affected in his or her own right to that same protection if the kinds of laws O'Donnell and the groups she was working with and for were advocating?

Same with the dust-up Bob Costas stepped into when making a commentary on guns during an Eagles football game televised nationally in the wake of a murder-suicide carried out with a gun by an NFL player. Some of the reactions from athletes themselves - including Charles Barkley - was "Yeah, but...you know many if not most of us carry or own guns for protection..." or some variation of that sentiment. I don't know if any prominent stars actually came out and said it, but the sentiment to Costas seemed to hint at avoiding a case of hypocrisy when the sports world he inhabits with very high-paid athletes actively uses guns and armed security for personal protection.

It's a tough call, I know where I stand and the notion of calling out hypocrisy is one which I use often in forming opinions on politics and world affairs (that list could be very long, if not impossible...), but I would ask what other opinions may be there in terms of those strong gun control advocates like Bloomberg and O'Donnell saying one thing is in the common good, yet employing versions of that very same thing they suggest isn't good for the common good in the cause of their own personal safety.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Tu quoque