About gun control

Posted in Etiquetas: , , | en 8:38 AM

After the last mass shooting in Newtown the debate about gun control has jumped to the frontpages again. And again, the people who never want to talk about it are saying that it is insensitive to talk now. “Too soon” they say.


The problem is that the shootings are pilling up. And just when the mourning period for the one in Portland was about to expire -and according to the NRA timeframes, it was ok to talk about it- Newtown came in.

As many people have pointed out, it is not that it is too soon to talk about it. In fact, it is too late. That should have been discussed before. One would think that after a Congresswoman was attacked, politicians -and the people- would have taken the matter more seriously. Nope.

Probably many people against gun control are afraid of the government taking the guns from their hands. But they need to understand, gun control doesn’t mean no guns, just a tighter and more controlled access to them and their use. And there are plenty of reasons to apply gun control.

A very common argument is that other factors like a deficient mental healthcare is to blame for mass shootings. Interestingly, many of the people who oppose gun control are closer to Republicans than to Democrats -not all- and they opposed as well Obamacare. Imagine what they would have to say about taxpayers’ money going into universal mental healthcare. Or into public schools so teachers and staff are more prepared to identify possible psychopaths.

It is not the only contradiction for Republicans. They resist the government control over gun ownership yet they insist in controlling communications, women’s bodies, gay marriages or immigrants. Selective freedom, it seems.

It is also interesting to note that while one isolated shoe bomber made widespread airport controls the norm, no matter how many mass shootings there are to convince people of the need for a debate on the issue.

Foreign examples of Switzerland and Israel are often cited as countries with lax gun control but both recently tightened the access to firearms. Australia long ago applied gun control and numbers talk for themselves. Japan's number of deaths are down to almost zero. 

The only other example of a country with permissive laws on the matter is Finland, who is the second -after the US- on mass shootings by civilians.

It is understandable the need for a militia -and therefore, the Second Amendment- in the post-independence America, but now it is just an anachronism. In my European mind it is impossible to conceive how citizens of the country with the biggest and most advanced army in the world feel so unsafe to be compelled to buy guns to defend themselves. Let alone, the need for semi-automatic weapons. 

 Furthermore, if no one but the ones who must maintain the law and order were allowed to carry guns, there wouldn’t be a need to carry a gun for self-defense.

“That wouldn’t stop someone who wants to harm of doing it” say as another excuse pro-guns lobbies. Well, I have to agree with that one. Nothing, not even the tightest laws, will stop a determined enough lunatic. But at least the damage, the chances for it to happen or the frequency of the attacks wouldn’t be so great.

Take a firearm away from a psycho and they will find another way to do harm. But probably it will be a less harmful one, like a knife. Or a frying pan. Just yesterday a guy with a knife assaulted a school in China, stabbing 22 children. All survived.

So, how many more shootings until someone acts? Hey, it is your country, not mine, but I'm worried for my American friends. They are too.




  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS
Read Users' Comments (0)

The right to offend and be offended

Posted in Etiquetas: , , , | en 7:58 AM


The recent evolution of the case with Kate Middleton’s hospital prank has left me shocked. But not for the reasons everyone is, but for quite a different point of view.

For those who don’t know what I’m talking about, the story started when Kate Middleton -who is recently pregnant- was hospitalized due to acute morning sickness. A pair of Aussie DJs decided to play a prank and called the hospital impersonating the Queen to try to talk with the Duchess of Cambridge. A nurse answered the call and bought in but instead of passing them with Ms. Middleton, she just gave a report on the Duchess’ evolution. Outrage followed and two days later the nurse appeared death after apparently killing herself.

Now the public opinion, championed by the British media -and we are not talking only the tabloids- is asking for the head of the DJs, Scotland Yard wants to question them and everyone in Britain blame them on the death of the nurse.

Bullshit.

For starters, a suicide is more complex than all that and it would be stupid to blame it on only one reason for it. That one reason may have been the trigger, but it’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Moreover, the ones who snowballed the incident in the first place -British media and British public opinion- are the ones to blame. They created the social pressure on the poor nurse who was just a victim of an innocent -and not that much funny, but neither cruel- prank.

No one complained about this
It is not either that uncommon. No one seemed outraged when half of the world laughed at that poor Spanish woman who botched a master piece of art in a church. And they were vicious with her. It even reached the other side of the Atlantic and appeared on Conan O’Brien’s show.

Ideally, this prank should have made sound the alert on the bodyguard team of the Royals, who would have tightened the security around them. And that should be the real debate, why two simple radio DJs managed to reach a sensitive information provider so easily. Where was the secret service?

Instead, the same public opinion and newspapers that built up the social pressure that maybe triggered the suicide of the nurse, they now are building up more social pressure to get the two DJs fired. Who will be next?

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS
Read Users' Comments (0)

The nonsense of Israeli settlements

Posted in Etiquetas: , , , | en 6:36 PM


I consider myself quite fair and even minded. In the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians I think both sides are entitled to a certain degree of truth on their arguments. 

However, in the case of the settlements, for me is a no brainer: they are an obstacle towards peace or a two state solution -whatever comes first.

Some time ago I was talking about the conflict with an American Jew from in New Jersey. It was a nice, polite and civilized conversation with an educated woman. Towards the end, we started talking about the settlements; me against, she in favor.

When all the reasons for her positions were met by me with solid arguments against it based on international law and common sense, this educated woman had no option but to admit they were fair.

- So, why Israel keeps building them? -I asked.
- Because we can.

That completely got me off guard. Coming from an educated person, I insist, who had admitted the settlements were an obstacle for peace and against all common sense and international law was even more shocking.

Photo by: pinky_again/flickr
But that seems to summarize the position of the present Israeli government. They are doing it because they can. 

They have their backs safe with the support of the US and they are the regional superpower in military terms. And until that changes, no matter how many UN actions are taken. Israel will continue to occupy what they see as theirs by the right of God*.

*And this on itself could give us enough to talk for ages.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS
Read Users' Comments (0)
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)