1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is the political/media response to this shooting lower than in the past?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Battler, Apr 18, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Battler

    Battler Member

    Jan 21, 2003
    . . .. . from an antigun perspective.

    I remember the Clinton years. I call out to people who remember those days, and maybe back to the late 80s. . . . .

    There were a bunch of publicized shootings in 1999-2001. Someone would go nuts, and immediately Clinton and other politicians would be talking about trigger locks and wagging their fingers at gunowners and the NRA.

    It could be that my own perception of it has changed (that I don't even register antigun stories any more due to their commonality). But I don't see the intensity of response.

    Has anyone noticed as I am that the antigun response is more subdued than it used to be? If so, what do you think are the factors? Are we desensitized to massacres? Are the big dems scared of pushing it down their media chain and rattling/rallying gunowners? Is deference to the grieving of the victims causing those who would do the usual "blood dance" to wait out of respect?

    I'm sure Sarah Brady is raising holy hell. But few politicians or CNN types seem to be doing so. They're talking about the murderer, I honestly think MSNBC and CNN are implying he's more to blame than the NRA!

    They've got people on TV talking about concealed carry so people can defend themselves - they discredit it; but there's often someone on putting it out there, giving the idea a bit of air time.

    Any thoughts on this? Is this the calm before the storm? I don't see this getting milked fast enough to harness the disgust over the shooting - and I don't see a particularly high amount of that disgust being directed toward gun ownership compared to 8 years ago.
  2. Checkman

    Checkman member

    Sep 23, 2003
    I would agree. Perhaps the difference is we don't have Clinton in office? Well the fight still goes on. God help us if Hillary gets in or anyone else (from the current bunch) for that matter.
  3. Knotthead

    Knotthead Member

    Aug 1, 2006
    If you look at the feedback that most of the opinion and news pieces are getting, where they allow comments, it seems to be predominantly from those of us who support gun ownership, rather than those who see banning guns as the only possible solution. Perhaps they are beginning to realize that the public does not agree with them as strongly as they had convinced themselves. While I don't think we are changing many minds at the top of the debate, I think they are coming to realize that the public no longer accepts their decrees as gospel. Maybe we are finally breaking free of "media indoctrination".
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page