Bloomberg: Be Careful What You Wish For!

This piece from The Trace just seems a bit vapid:

t how much do mass shootings actually ignite discussion beyond politicians, pundits, and activists — how much appetite for the issue exists among the public at large? And what subsequently shifts focus away from the conversations that do happen? Cutting-edge techniques in social-media data analysis offer insight into this process. Research provided to The Trace by Crimson Hexagon, a Massachusetts-based social-media analytics firm, reveals two things. First, despite some claims to the contrary, there was indeed a robust interest in talking about gun violence and gun rights in the days immediately after the Charleston shooting. Second, by the start of the following week’s news cycle, that conversation had been supplanted by something else: debate over the Confederate battle flag.

So all this story says is people were talking about guns heavily on twitter up until the topic of the Confederate Battle Flag came up, then people focused on that.

Still what they omit is what SIDE people were on when they were talking. The usual suspects have been pushing for their favorite hobby horses that would have had nothing to do with this crime…but they ALWAYS are calling for pet-gun-control laws, and they just double their effort when there is blood under their shoes.

Also like always, nobody listens, because gun control laws are insane and pointless and people know it.

So yeah, Bloomberg is whining that they missed the window for a Debate….yet they never wanted to debate in the first place….well because they would lose if they did!

This entry was posted in Guns, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Bloomberg: Be Careful What You Wish For!

  1. Archer says:

    I believe it was Tam who pointed out that that “national conversation on gun violence” the antis supposedly want to have, has really been happening for decades with no new arguments or evidence supporting infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

    Everything the antis are saying and demanding now, they’ve been saying and demanding for a very long time. All the evidence they provide is the same evidence they’ve been providing. Even the “new” academic and “scientific” studies just repeat the same talking points, based on the same flawed assumptions.

    On the other hand, the pro-rights side is growing stronger and has more and better evidence and arguments than ever.

    The reason the antis can’t get a “national conversation” going is because the conversation’s been had, and unless they come up with something new to offer that trumps what the pro-rights folks have (which they can’t) it’s just not worth re-hashing.

    • TS says:

      “Everything the antis are saying and demanding now, they’ve been saying and demanding for a very long time.”

      They’ve done some shifting. Mostly to anti-carry stuff, since carry wasn’t too prevalent 20-30 years ago. In other words, they are on their heels. It used to be “ban handguns!”, now it’s “umm… You can’t carry your handgun in church!”

      Along those lines, ranting against self-defense laws, and private sales bans (I guess they had to wait for the ink to dry on the Brady Bill before complaining about what it doesn’t cover) are newer shifts in their talking points.

      • Jack/OH says:

        “You can’t carry . . . in church!” TS, our local paper had a front page piece w/photo of a retired cop displaying her handgun w/ the caption saying she does carry to services at her black church.

        Maybe that’ll do a little to promote the idea that handguns are in themselves unobjectionable personal effects, like car keys and ballpoint pens.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *