marieldraconis

First, if you lost anyone in the most recent shootings, I'm very sorry for your loss. Unfortunately for you, the exercise I'm about to propose will be that much easier.

Second:
The next time you are in a position to affect (vote on, send out of committee or allow to come up for a vote, veto, write, anything) any bill affecting guns in America, consider the following in your actions:
Pick someone you love, someone whose life and happiness you care about. Convince yourself that they'll be one of the victims of the next mass shooting. Maybe they're a kid going to school, maybe their commute passes by the shooter's target, maybe they're the good guy with a gun the NRA keeps talking about, and they try to pick off the shooter but the shooter gets them first (if you have a loved one who is both a qualified sniper and always carries their gun everywhere, even to the bathroom, they are ineligible as the example for this exercise, because making sure everyone is a qualified sniper and never leaves their guns behind isn't feasible).
If you've ever shot a gun, or seen the aftermath, on a mammal (human, deer, or any other), picture those wounds on your loved one. If you've ever seen such wounds in real life (not as a Hollywood depiction), use that to inspire your imagination. 

Now you've horrified yourself, and maybe are crying or throwing up or similar. Now you're in the right frame of mind for that bill. 
Would this bill affect your loved one's chances? If he or she is a victim of the next mass shooting, would you be able to honestly say you've done everything you can to ensure his or her safety? If not, how can you change the bill to improve his or her chances?

It's not about the government taking away your guns, it's about the value of human life. The MSD kids have it right--if you accept NRA money, then you're putting a price tag on your consituents' lives, and it's a very low price. How many lives is your gun worth? How many lives is your next reelection worth? How many lives if not nameless individuals but people you love? 

I just heard (audiobook) Merchant of Venice for the first time, and it reminded me of everything I know about anti-Jew prejudice during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and...it occurred to me...
In a lot of worrying ways, that's how a segment of the populace is talking about Muslims now. Because it wasn't just usury (which at least was factually true, although modern society has grown more comfortable with the concept of interest on loans) and greed, it was stealing Christian children and deliberately defiling Christian holy sites and despoiling Christian artifacts and rituals. (None of this from the play, but I have faint memories of reading about this sort of prejudice). Not because these were things that were happening, just that it was easy to make the Jews the bad guys (really, after centuries, you might try a bit of forgiveness? No human responsible for it was still alive, and ultimately a good chunk of the reason for the incident in question was forgiveness--of all of us.)

The concept was "war on Christianity", on Christian values and Christians generally. And that sort of rhetoric has come up again. Modernized, and applied to Muslims instead of Jews, but it's ultimately the same thing, just differently targeted, and almost as inaccurate (for the exception, see below)
And, as we saw last century, with even more potential for danger--Ferdinand and Isabella kicked the Muslims out of Spain, if I understand enough of the history. But now, we have the tools for genocide--and off the top of my head, I can think of at least two genocides of a religious group, in Europe, in the 20th century.

Now, where Daesh (ISIL or ISIS, but Daesh at least is a name I'm sure is valid) is concerned, those accusations seem valid, or at least worth worrying about. In Daesh-controlled territory, I would worry about forced conversions and genocide, and destruction of artifacts (not just Christian--artifacts created by humanity in ages past, which matter because history). But I very much doubt they have much influence outside that territory. How many of their attempts to claim responsibility for terrorist attacks are valid, and how many are either them trying to pretend more influence than they have, or some nutjob wanting an excuse for his violence? I get the distinct impression that claiming to be following God's will, either by pledging allegiance to Daesh or by claiming to be a good Christian, is the claimed motivation behind a number of hate crimes and acts of domestic terrorism in the US. But it's as much Christians as Muslims--I'm remembering the nightclub attack last year, but also the Planned Parenthood attack in Colorado the...year before, I think?
No one group is the enemy, except maybe if there's a group out there with the explicit and sole purpose of destroy-all-members-of-[group which includes you]. But even then, why does this group exist, what makes them want to kill-you-all, and never forget you're talking about people, who have motivations and reasons, and who are capable of amazing goodness as well as heinous evil.

At least 745 dead. 500+ in a city where everyone knows what happened. 200 more...no one knows what happened in that city.
Phone lines blocked--even cell phones.
Internet in the native language--blocked.
A meeting for a moment of silence arranged...and no one dares get out of their cars.
Even people working with the government are scared.

Fiction? My latest story? I wish.
Reality.
Uzbekistan. I honor your dead, pray for your peace, wish scruples for your government.
Uzbekistan.


[2018 Update: looking back over my old posts, I didn't recognize this one, I think I was talking about the Andijan Massacre.]