Skip to main content

Political points on gun control in light of massacre in US

Last night, Kerre Woodham, NewsTalk ZB talkshow host, was encouraging listeners to phone in to not only discuss the Virginia Tech Massacre, but how the gun culture in the US allowed the massacre to occur in the first place.

Many people obliged, joining in with their indignation that America considered ownership of guns to be sacrosanct, when obviously guns were dangerous and allowed a person to go out and kill many people more than if they had to individually club them to death.

The underlying message was really that the US needs better gun control in order to prevent massacres in the future. A political point being pushed if ever I heard one.

So, when a woman phoned in and said that with 18,000 deaths a year in NZ of unborn babies, we have no right to criticise George Bush over gun control, and then hung up so as to not get involved in any sort of argument, I thought it was a bit rich of Kerre Woodham to say the following:
"I think it's a little cheap to use a highschool massacre to push a political point."
I suppose it's only acceptable to make political points that people agree with when it comes to massacres, like, let's ban all guns as opposed to turning the spotlight back to ourselves and how little we really value life.

Comments

  1. We manage to "massacre" enough of our young people already without the aid of guns.

    With one of the highest youth suicides rates on the planet I think we deserve it cup of get your own problems sorted out first before pointing the finger at other people.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah, about a nano second after the last shot was fired the politics of gun control started.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Abortion is a political point???

    The sheer blindness and arrogance to equate a "political point" with the murder of unborn babies reminds me of many things, one being the scripture that you should take the log out of your own eye before you try and take the speck out of your brother's eye.

    It also reminds me of a letter to today's Herald where the writer said we should be working to move towards a non-violent society. Wonder what her opinion is of abortion then? Is a "women's choice" not a violent consequence for the baby?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Again!
    Human status is derived politically not scientifically.
    Abortion debate along the lines of human development is spurious if people can't define attributes of a human. Such definition is derived politically.

    It's so obvious that even Kere Woodham intuitively knows that.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.