![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
News stuffs
Jan. 18th, 2013 07:56 amI saw an article this morning explaining why Americans' paychecks were a little smaller after the first of the year. I think it's a legitimate article for the reporter to write, but are there seriously people surprised? What with all the fiscal cliff stuff going on the last two months before New Year's and all? That was ABOUT tax break changes. I'm not being an information elitist, either - seriously, it was all over all manner of news outlets, like, constantly.
On other news, I'm all for the presidential suggestions for gun control legislation. I heard one gun rights advocate tell NPR it's not necessary to question why people would want to buy semiautomatic weapons, when trying to decide whether to outlaw them, like it's an infringement on their rights up there with collecting old Mustangs or something. OF COURSE IT'S NECESSARY TO ASK. A MUSTANG IS NOT MANUFACTURED SPECIFICALLY TO INJURE OR KILL PEOPLE. IF YOU'RE NOT PLANNING AN ASSASSINATION OR MASSACRE, YOU SHOULDN'T MIND ANSWERING THE QUESTION. He also said there are not sides to this issue, just disagreement on how to regulate gun ownership. Oh no, my friend - there are definitely "sides." I'm cool with people owning firearms for hunting and protection or as legitimately historical artifacts, but do not suggest I'm on a ball team with Alex Jones. We are not.
It's like the talk about how we need to address care for the mentally impaired. On the one hand, we need to recognize mental illness is a broad term and not all illness results in the same or dangerous behavior across the board. We need to stop throwing around words like "deranged" and "crazy" so casually when referring specifically to mental illness. On the other hand, I don't care how misunderstood Adam Lanza or Joker Boy were, I'm perfectly comfortable calling someone who shoots and kills unarmed civilians or a score of children deranged after the fact. It's the people who can't understand that distinction who piss me off almost as much as the LaPierre "we need to make a list of the mentally ill" bullshit. There's an in-between just like there is with gun ownership rights - shouldn't there be?
On other news, I'm all for the presidential suggestions for gun control legislation. I heard one gun rights advocate tell NPR it's not necessary to question why people would want to buy semiautomatic weapons, when trying to decide whether to outlaw them, like it's an infringement on their rights up there with collecting old Mustangs or something. OF COURSE IT'S NECESSARY TO ASK. A MUSTANG IS NOT MANUFACTURED SPECIFICALLY TO INJURE OR KILL PEOPLE. IF YOU'RE NOT PLANNING AN ASSASSINATION OR MASSACRE, YOU SHOULDN'T MIND ANSWERING THE QUESTION. He also said there are not sides to this issue, just disagreement on how to regulate gun ownership. Oh no, my friend - there are definitely "sides." I'm cool with people owning firearms for hunting and protection or as legitimately historical artifacts, but do not suggest I'm on a ball team with Alex Jones. We are not.
It's like the talk about how we need to address care for the mentally impaired. On the one hand, we need to recognize mental illness is a broad term and not all illness results in the same or dangerous behavior across the board. We need to stop throwing around words like "deranged" and "crazy" so casually when referring specifically to mental illness. On the other hand, I don't care how misunderstood Adam Lanza or Joker Boy were, I'm perfectly comfortable calling someone who shoots and kills unarmed civilians or a score of children deranged after the fact. It's the people who can't understand that distinction who piss me off almost as much as the LaPierre "we need to make a list of the mentally ill" bullshit. There's an in-between just like there is with gun ownership rights - shouldn't there be?
