The inequity of compassion

Brady Campaign president Dan Gross wrote:

From the moment I started to get involved in the gun violence issue, I found the disproportionate attention given to our story also made me feel uncomfortable.
 
People seemed to care more because my brother was a white, upper-middle-class, young musician, shot at a famous landmark. A common theme began to emerge: “that kind of tragedy isn’t supposed to happen in places like that, to people like your brother.”
 
Over the years now, I have seen this same theme repeated. We seem to care more about certain tragedies, like suburban school shootings or psychotic shooting sprees in office buildings or malls or famous victims. Certain deaths seem to matter more.

“Certain deaths seem to matter more.”? Absolutely true. For example, self defense deaths are far more acceptable (sometimes even praiseworthy) than murders. Doesn’t Gross understand that?

The irony is that the Gross and his ilk are one of the worst in regards to “certain deaths seem to matter more”. I have long been critical of the Brady Campaign and anti-gun activists in general when they complain about “gun deaths” as if they were somehow more important that “fists and feet deaths” or “knife deaths”. And he complains “certain deaths seem to matter more” to the population at large? Wipe some of the soot off your face pal.

Gross goes on to say:

As a result, there is far too little focus on a shockingly common problem, that poses a far greater threat to all of us than most realize, and we fail to examine surprisingly simple and accessible opportunities to prevent it.

Absolutely true. And that is why we are working to get rid of all those gun laws that create victim disarmament zones. People have a right to defend themselves whether it is in their home, at work, or on the streets. Disarming potential victims is just wrong and just allowing people to use the best tools available for self defense will improve the odds for everyone. We agree there are “surprising simple and accessible opportunities” to prevent and stop criminal violence. Why does the Brady Campaign fight us on this? We are better than this.

5 thoughts on “The inequity of compassion

  1. Even taking his point at face value it’s horse manure. No one cares about gang bangers getting shot by other gang bangers. No one really cares about drug dealers and users murdering each other. Since those are the majority of all killings, it’s not surprising that no one pays any attention to the majority of murders. Criminals getting murdered don’t warrant sympathy.

    It’s only when the killing spills over into our lives that it bothers us. We live in law abiding ways, and we expect the people we interact with to live the same way. We expect that the criminals will leave us alone. It’s no different than the Mississippi River. So long as the river stays within its banks, it’s a large but otherwise unremarkable river. We only get pissed off if it jumps the banks and floods our house.

    How can you build a movement to destroy the Constitution with so few bodies?

  2. Dear Sean D Sorrentino:

    Thank you for your sage insights.

    I think you build an astroturf organization like the BC and VCPC to destroy the Constitution by:

    1) Getting lots of money from progressive/liberal organizations (e.g. Joyce Foundation)
    2) Inventing or changing definitions and nomenclature to confuse subjects and elicit emotional responses (Assault Weapons, Gun Deaths)
    3) Commission bogus “scientific” research (Kellerman), report prematurely, lie, block dissenting viewpoints, and just misrepresent facts
    4) Finally, have a willing partner in the synchophantic main-stream media with unquestioning brain dead journalists who parrot their talking points

  3. Braden, you may be on to something. Does the experience of journalism school/career breed sycophants or are they attracted to journalism school/career?

  4. Dear Windy Wilson,

    I forgot which recent author expounded on this very idea (maybe it was Bernard Goldberg in his book, “Bias”).

    I think it talked about the journalists who went into the profession to “change the world” when, gee, I thought the purpose of journalism was to report the facts.

    Since the press is overwhelming liberal, you can see how easy it would be for them to be sycophantic to a POTUS that is their version of a wet dream.
    Eh, I think I need a shower!

    Hail to the new media and the bloggers!

Comments are closed.