I disagree. Not with the fact that it's well-said (it is), but with the premise that the aftermath of an incident is not the right time to discuss it. Sure, you should wait until at least the primary details of the incident are known so you can make an informed argument, but once that's happened I think there's no better time to discuss it than when it's fresh in people's minds and the reason we should take action is most apparent.
What happens when the gap between these incidents gets small enough that the "too soon to talk about the cause" moratorium crosses over into the next shooting? Do we continue not to talk about from there, because that's too soon again? FOX News would certainly have us think so. Jon Stewart was recently talking about another shooting incident that took place before this, but his argument dovetails nicely into this one and point out why the "too soon" argument falters:
I agree that these types of discussions should continue even when there's no major shooting incidents going on, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it in the immediate aftermath --with enough time to make informed arguments-- as well.
This. Personally, I think right now is a great time to be talking about reforming gun control laws. The public is outraged about what happened. Would stricter gun control have prevented this incident given that the weapons used belonged to the mother? Possibly not, however it's time to take a look at them. There was a shooting on Monday, and then this one on Friday. When are they going to be too close together, when the media interrupts coverage of one incident to report another one?
is now Captain Stoned
You are too straight to be a floral designer. - da Bunny
RIP Dad Apr 22, 1942 - Dec 2, 2011