Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Friday, June 28, 2013

Guns Across America

Posted by on Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:11 AM


A 12-year-old fatally shot his 9-year-old half-brother at their grandparents' home in Jackson County, Ohio on Wednesday, before shooting himself dead with a gun he placed under his chin... The children were home alone when the shooting occurred.


Comments (51) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
seatackled 1
RIP, kids, hope the gun owner gets prosecuted, and go fuck yourself, bingo troll.
Posted by seatackled on June 28, 2013 at 11:33 AM · Report this
Murder-suicide at 12...

The kids, they just grow up so fast these days!
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on June 28, 2013 at 11:37 AM · Report this
If only the 9 year-old had been...oh, I can't, it's just too fucked up and sad.
Posted by judybrowni on June 28, 2013 at 11:40 AM · Report this
Normal people: "two children died thanks to one of them getting his hands on a gun. Heartbreaking. Terrible."

NRA: "We must preserve our freedoms. Phooey on gun safety lessons, classes in responsible ownership. Lobbying for gun manufacturers is more important."

I bet I'm not the only one wondering how the twelve-year-old got hold of a gun. The US culture is so sick I'm betting he probably got it a a present for leaving preschool.
Posted by Coffin builders & gun lobby win, family loses on June 28, 2013 at 11:50 AM · Report this
Even if there was a gun there, what would possess a 12 year old to shoot his brother? This problem runs deeper than anyone at Slog cares to admit, or even address. Until we move away from our violence worshipping, war faring culture, we'll suffer from a social psychosis that won't be solved, but further exacerbated, by impinging on constitutional rights.
Posted by NancyBalls on June 28, 2013 at 12:02 PM · Report this

just, wow.

too bad this didn't make the morning news roundup.
Posted by whaa! if Danny doesn't have to read Slog why the fuck do we? on June 28, 2013 at 12:15 PM · Report this
@5 Exactly. I asked an 11-year-old American boy a few minutes ago if he thought kids his age should have access to handguns. "No, because our minds are not fully formed, and we don't recognize the severity of our actions." Mind you the same will probably be said by the defense attorney for New England Patriot Aaron Hernandez, twice as old as Austin Wiseman. So, either the 11-year-old boy is a pacifist pinko who should be deported, or the agency that led to a 12-year-old boy firing a handgun (includes personal volition) is fucked up.

Funny, the 11-year-old has access to knives which can be used for stabbing, and matches which can be used for arson, and is left alone occasionally with small animals, and somehow they all are alive, unscorched, unsliced.
Posted by So maybe not every preteen should have a gun? on June 28, 2013 at 12:20 PM · Report this
Dr_Awesome 8
Wow, unregistered troll @7. Did you have a point to make? Or is today your day to randomly hammer out words on your Fisher-Price laptop, with no intention of actually making an understandable point?
Posted by Dr_Awesome on June 28, 2013 at 12:34 PM · Report this
Huh. My assumption was that he accidentally shot his brother then shot himself rather than face his family with what he'd done. Even if the family and local police ever figure out what really happened, the rest of us will never know.
Posted by East Coast Douglas on June 28, 2013 at 12:37 PM · Report this
venomlash 10
I think #7 actually made a good point.
Posted by venomlash on June 28, 2013 at 12:48 PM · Report this
And again Dan is upset over a child dying in America but was happy to call for deaths in Iraq because of "Islamo-facists".
So why is the life of a child in America worth so much more than the life of a child in Iraq?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on June 28, 2013 at 12:56 PM · Report this
Who the fuck let the troll @7 around an 11 year old?
Posted by captdrastic on June 28, 2013 at 12:58 PM · Report this
ECD @9: Interesting theory. Really. I went straight to murder-suicide (in the wrong order, as usual) by some warped, traumatized, or mentally ill kid. One news report states, "Each boy had a gunshot wound to the head", while a off-angle shot to the chest or neck seems more likely to be accidental.

However, it could have been play acting gone horribly wrong followed by a suicide rather than face the parents / grandparents.
Posted by DAVIDinKENAI on June 28, 2013 at 12:59 PM · Report this
Kids age twelve can be taught to handle guns responsibly. It seems that no one bothered with this boy AND they left a gun unlocked where he could get it.

Posted by DRF on June 28, 2013 at 1:00 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 15
@11: is that your best attempt to derail this topic, to bring up Dans' 12-year old mistake that he's admitted and apologized for? weak sauce.

Why don't you try explaining why this incident is no big deal, its a statistical anomoly, so everybody buy more guns to give your children?
Posted by Max Solomon on June 28, 2013 at 1:23 PM · Report this
blip 16
@5, Do you really think no one here cares to admit we have a deeply fucked up cultural obsession with guns? Do you really not see that subtext raging through each and every one of these posts? Actually, forget subtext: Mudede has been posting "Gun-Crazy Country" headlines for years now. If you don't think Slog gets it you are either dense or willfully delusional.

It's interesting how you talk about our fucked up gun and violence obsessed culture and then go on to stroke your 2nd amendment rights without the slightest sense of a connection between the two. Slog is well aware of the depth and scope of the problem. If anyone here is missing the point, it's people like you.
Posted by blip on June 28, 2013 at 1:28 PM · Report this
" bring up Dans' 12-year old mistake that he's admitted and apologized for?"

Here is Dan saying that people who do not agree with his desire for our military to go over there and kill them are "stupid".…

Here is Dan saying that he is against the way the war is being handled but still wants us to bomb the "Islamo-fascists".…

Here is Dan saying that he, again, supports dropping bombs on "Islamo-fasicsts" in Iraq.…
"Still, I don't regret my support for the war, nor do I regret the war itself."
So where's the point where he apologized for demanding the deaths of "Islamo-fascists"?

So it is okay to demand that our people go over to Iraq and drop bombs on them until the fictional "Islamo-fascists" are gone BUT a dead American child is a terrible tragedy.

So that 3 instances that I can link to.
And here's a video of a US helicopter shooting children in Iraq.…

So what do you have?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on June 28, 2013 at 1:55 PM · Report this
Another victory for the National Rifle Association. Own it you losers.
Posted by Bearcruzer on June 28, 2013 at 3:02 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 19
All we have to do is forcibly disarm 150,000,000 Americans and we will never have to deal with these kinds of tragedies again.

A door to door search of every residence in the country should be no problem for our beloved Department of Homeland Security agents.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on June 28, 2013 at 3:30 PM · Report this
@14 I think you're missing the main point here. This was a murder-suicide, not an accidental shooting. The kid wasted his step-brother before topping himself. That's an intentional act, premeditated. I'm sure he knew exactly how to use a gun.

One does wonder how a 12-year old gets to the point where he can do this. It's quite precocious, in a deeply, darkly depressing way. Normally, that's the action of a severely disturbed 35-year-old whose second wife just walked out on him.

The point of these posts is generally how this is a casually, carelessly violent country. This is an example of something else: how violence is an integral part of our (anti-)social structure. Each to solve his own problems. Guns the final solution when you're too emotional or too overwhelmed to figure out any of the other ways. Every man an executioner. Every gun's trigger a key to the exit door.

For a nation with a large cohort of "right-to-lifers," and with resistance to death-with-dignity medical options, we have a puzzling addiction to the romance of the gun, to the lead suicide, to the one last act of vengence, to the big finale. Some call it freedom. I call it desperation. Peaceful and civilized nations aren't like this. We are too often a horrible, despair-filled nation of deluded, failing louts and depressives who are their own worst enemies.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on June 28, 2013 at 3:31 PM · Report this
raindrop 21
@8: You bash people for not making a point but you're not making a point yourself about the subject, are you now?
Posted by raindrop on June 28, 2013 at 3:33 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 22

You do realize that Dan Savage didn't start the gun control movement, right? It's not like you're going to get people to all go, "Oh, Dan Savage sucks. Let's let any fool who wants one have a gun!"

Michael Bloomberg, maybe. But even then, he didn't start it, and he isn't the one who made people care so much. Money can kind of counteract money, but this was never really about money.

You know who really gave impetus to the contemporary gun regulation movement? Adam Lanza. And James Holmes. And Dylan Harris and Eric Klebold. Those guys. Changing how people feel about Dan Savage isn't going to change their views on guns. You need to change how we feel about mass murderers.

Oh, and your spokesmodel: Wayne LaPierre. If anybody can be called the father of gun control, it's Wayne.

This isn't about whether Dan Savage is or was a bad man. It's about being fed up with the daily body count. That's your real problem.

Now if you want to try to destroy the It Gets Better Project, then yeah, you go attack Dan Savage's reputation. You go right ahead there and let me know how that works out for you.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on June 28, 2013 at 4:02 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 23
You don't have to sit here and go, "Oh, this is fucked up. A child kills a child. The world is so fucked up..." Do something. You can do something about this:

Yes on 594.

Don't just sit there and feel shitty about a dead 9 year old and a dead 12 year old. Prevent it.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on June 28, 2013 at 4:06 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 24

The NRA consideres mandatory training or mandatory gun locks/safes to be a violation of the Second Amendment. Common sense gun safety is nice in their view, but not necessary. Just like they think it would be nice to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, criminals and lunatics, but taking positive steps to be sure of it? The NRA will fight that to their last breath.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on June 28, 2013 at 4:15 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 25

It's a fallacy to argue that we can't do anything about gun deaths short of confiscating every gun. That's like saying we have to let drunk drivers rule the roads unless we are willing to ban alcohol and ban cars.

We've kept our cars and kept alcohol legal, and yet drastically reduced highway deaths and drunk driving through common sense regulation. Traffic deaths are 1/20th what they were 90 years ago.

Our success in reducing traffic deaths through common sense rules is one reason why many states like Washington see more people die from guns than from car accidents. Used to be cars killed more people than guns, but we did something about the car problem while we sat and did nothing about guns.

Now we need to do the same thing for gun deaths that we did for traffic deaths. Apply simple common sense that lets people exercise their rights within sensible boundaries.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on June 28, 2013 at 4:24 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 26
@17: again, you're trying to run the topic off the rails. the topic is american kids shooting american kids, not american soldiers shooting iraqi kids at Dan Savage's behest.

stop trying to ad hominem him because he thinks unsupervised kids with access to loaded weapons is a bad idea.

Posted by Max Solomon on June 28, 2013 at 5:17 PM · Report this
@17, do you ever feel kind of... mechanical?
Posted by diner mo on June 28, 2013 at 8:32 PM · Report this
Posted by Christampa on June 29, 2013 at 1:23 AM · Report this
venomlash 29
I'd characterize your statement as some sort of hideous mixture of "false dilemma" and "slippery slope".
Posted by venomlash on June 29, 2013 at 8:37 AM · Report this
So you can't even link to what you claimed. I'm not surprised.

"the topic is american kids shooting american kids, not american soldiers shooting iraqi kids at Dan Savage's behest."

And one is bad while the other is good.
Even though it's still children being shot.
But it's good to shoot children as long as those children are "Islamo-fascists".
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on June 29, 2013 at 10:37 AM · Report this
Nyckname 31
And you can't hold the gun owner responsible because FREEDUMB!!!!1!!11
Posted by Nyckname on June 30, 2013 at 5:46 AM · Report this
Lissa 32
@30: in case you missed it @28.…
Get over it.
Posted by Lissa on June 30, 2013 at 9:01 AM · Report this
"Get over it."

Shall we look at that link? Let's see what Dan wrote.

"First things first: I wanted this thing to succeed. I still do."

That's not an apology.

"There were never enough troops on the ground—and since this president never met a fuckup he wouldn't pin a Medal of Freedom on, the same fuckups who mismanaged this thing from the start are still grinning at us on TV."

Blaming Bush is not an apology.

"Does anyone in the White House know what the fuck they're doing?"

Blaming other people is not an apology.

"George W. Bush is good at one thing and one thing only: winning elections, then coasting along."

Again, blaming Bush is not an apology.

"I no longer have any faith—none whatsoever—in the jackasses running this show."

Again, blaming other people is not an apology.

"Like all liberals who supported this thing because they believed in combating tyranny in the Middle East, and the terrorism our support for tyranny earned us, I'm more angry about George Bush's handling of this war than any liberal who opposed it."

Yeah, blame Bush. Again.

"Liberal hawks wanted to win this more desperately than anyone else."

Because when our army kills a child in Iraq it is "good" because of "Islamo-fascists".
And still not an apology.

"And not because I don't care about the Iraqi people. I'm one of those liberals who backed the war for humanitarian reasons, among others."

We had to kill those children to save them. Not an apology.

"No, we should get out now because, with the Bushies in power for the next three years, we're simply not going to win."

How many times do you want to blame Bush?
Blaming Bush is not an apology.

"This war, as any idiot can see now (including this idiot), is either going to be nasty, brutal, and short—or nasty, brutal, and long."

That's about as close to an apology that he gets.
After blaming Bush over and over and over.
And he isn't apologizing for supporting the war.
He is blaming Bush for not winning the war the way that he thought Bush should win it.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on June 30, 2013 at 10:40 AM · Report this
lolorhone 34
@33: "Because when our army kills a child in Iraq it is "good" because of "Islamo-fascists"."

That's your formulation, not his quote. Killing children in Iraq was hardly the goal he had in mind with his wrong-headed endorsement of the war, and he never said dead children anywhere was a good thing. Regardless, somebody says some dumb shit in anger 10 years ago and their opinion on a wholly separate subject is void? You must be fun at your family reunions.
Posted by lolorhone on June 30, 2013 at 1:04 PM · Report this
"That's your formulation, not his quote."

Which is why there is not a link for it nor quotation marks around it.
Unlike his other direct quotes where I did include quotation marks.

"Regardless, somebody says some dumb shit in anger 10 years ago and their opinion on a wholly separate subject is void?"

He said it.…
He repeated it.…
He repeated it again.…
It was all Bush's fault for not running the war right.…
That a few years of "anger" there.
And a few years without a single link to a single story about an Iraqi child (Islamo-fascists) being shot.
But links to stories about American children being shot, those are easy to find.

Because the life of an Iraqi child (Islamo-fascists) is worth less than the life of an American child.
And if Iraqi children (Islamo-fascists) will die during our invasion then that is okay.
Anyway it is Bush's fault.
But an American child being shot in America? Better link to that story.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on June 30, 2013 at 2:05 PM · Report this
Lissa 36
@35: Sigh. Fine sweetpea. Dan is teh DEBBIL!!11!! Forever and ever, world without end, Amen. Now settle down and go play in the sun, cuz ya aren't getting any traction here with your hate hard on for Dan, and won't unless Seattleblues or poor little Danny Troll show up.

But hey! If those are the kind of people you want to hang with knock yourself out.
Posted by Lissa on June 30, 2013 at 7:40 PM · Report this
lolorhone 37
@35: The children of Iraq are dying because of the American occupation that Dan says- in one of your links!- he believes should end as quickly as possible. The children of America are dying because of gun lobbyist obstructionism in our gutless, non-representational political system. They are still two entirely separate subjects. At no point did Dan cheerlead for infanticide in Iraq or anywhere else. But do your thing- just know you look like an unbalanced troll and, frankly, we're all stocked up here.
Posted by lolorhone on June 30, 2013 at 8:14 PM · Report this
Christampa 38
@34 - Since we're splitting hairs and playing semantics, it's worth noting that Dan didn't call for the deaths of Iraqis or to drop bombs on the Islamofascists. He did say we should go to war against them, but he never said anything about wanting any of them dead.

No distinction there? Yeah, and there's no distinction between the article I linked and Dan literally saying "I'm sorry".

I hope I get to be the one to take your guns away from you. It would make my day to see you collapse in a heap of your own self-worthlessness without the only thing that gave you the confidence to go through life.
Posted by Christampa on July 1, 2013 at 1:28 AM · Report this
Dirtclustit 39
Fairly's opinion is an important first step if The People of the World, who by far outnumber those who use the media to pit US against each other, propagate seeds of hatred towards each other because politicians cannot continue on like this when everybody vehemently opposes wars waged against our brothers and sisters over oil.

Yet we have people who ignorantly claim that the problem isn't anything little ol innocent USA is doing to contribute to the situation, after all we certainly haven't done anything even remotely close to total disrespect invading a country and dismantling is without ever even saying Ooops, we haven't sent drones who didn't kill any innocent bystanders, how could they not understand, We're the good guys! If is wasn't for their belief that all persons who will not convert to Islam must die, the world would be a perfect place.That type of rhetoric makes me sick to stomach, yet right wing think tanks most brilliant idea is to pay people $60,000.00/year if they can run around the web and look like twenty different people he know the truth of the problem , that all Muslim's hate freedom and it's their religious beliefs that they adamantly believe all infidels must be exterminated [sic] and if you also look like twenty or thirty NRA supporters you just a raise to 70K/year, have five other friends ? If you keep quite about your paychecks you too can be earning 5 grand a year to become a "republican internet campaign manager (AKA "Facebook and the Web is the new campaign trail") Next thing you know your are the trendy kid who supposedly teach french language classes of the community college but he doesn't even say "do you speak French? no?" correctly but he don't care, why should he? he is making over 100K/year and the majority of his cash comes from fucking over his own friends, if they only knew the right wing are quite astute business men, if they Francois 5 grand a head to be under their pyramid systems they only have to pay 25k per year for the same work they pay an independent "operation Facebook" contractor 50K per year, plus they just removed themselves for the responsibility of this highly unethical new way to control since the media ain't cutting it no more.

We have a fifteen gallon a day habit, it isn't the best idea to go to war with the dealers or holders of the product.

If there were one group of business men I would NOT want running the show at oil extraction, it would be the very astute American styled "free market" businessmen. These are multi billion dollar corps. who billions aren't enough profit to not accept corporate wellfare checks, and when that money runs out, accept bailout checks, and not even have to cancel their make a family member rich day where for one day only they hire their uncle's new corporate catering business to feed the entire company for a day at $300 per meal, which they never have to work again. The same people who opened up a business two years manufacturing bolts for helicopters (which they got a hundred grand in gifts and loans with their new "start-up" money from the govt. they loose money for years on the books and even out their killing so as to not pay taxes then five years down the road they are one of the companies the military pay $80 a bolt for their new fleet of helicopters.

These fucks do not even file taxes for years, these typical republican business owners don't pay each year, they get obscene legal extensions, they're 2012 taxes are due until 2014 and they can pay with some corporate wellfare check from their next new venture

And most of these good, ethical, hardworking Christian American business men are all operating well within the law .

These are not the type of people I want in charge of any even oil fields, Texas is too much oil, how the hell can it cost more for a barrel of Texas oil, that is nowhere near the quality of sweet crude and it doesn't have to be transported half-way around the country?

now I don't know if that's true, but with American mentality of what is "fair" in their business world, I could totally see it happening.

on a lighter note, hey Dan it looks like your number one closeted homosexual finally bit the dust and decided to suck cock, or maybe enjoy a stiff lubed one into the banal comedian bummy, it sounds like he wants me to masturbate for him.

So if you got his letter asking "Do gay men call masturbating "fucking myself"
or all the gay men pissed off at me for the many years spent talking smack about homosexuals the entire time proclaiming straight white male, no thank you on sex or your dick in my mouth, you cannot get married because marriage has always been between a man and a woman, it's always been that way, it just works because it's right, at the time I didn't realize how obvious it was to others that THAT was obvious closeted secretely wanting to take long hard cock into every hole of my body, anyway, maybe all the shit I talked has led to a gay dude or two not liking me.

Are they really telling me to go masturbate? or are they telling me to go fuck myself?

~ yours truly C&R
Posted by Dirtclustit on July 1, 2013 at 9:04 AM · Report this
"Dan is teh DEBBIL!!11!!"

That's your opinion.
I'm pointing out that Dan does not regard the life of an Iraqi child to be worth as much as the life of an American child.

Want to see a video of a US helicopter shooting some children in Iraq?…
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 1, 2013 at 9:39 AM · Report this
lolorhone 41
@40: "I'm pointing out that Dan does not regard the life of an Iraqi child to be worth as much as the life of an American child."

No, that's YOUR opinion.

You know it's possible to endorse a war (however stupidly) without actively cheering collateral damage. World War II- a far more justifiable conflict- had millions of innocent lives destroyed. The loss of those lives was not the objective, and the lives themselves were not necessarily looked upon as of less value than those that were out of harm's way.

And, no I don't want to see video of a US helicopter shooting some children in Iraq. I can't imagine who would. If you're going rub people's faces in shit, pick a target you can actually hit. Otherwise, people just think that smell's coming off you.
Posted by lolorhone on July 1, 2013 at 10:49 AM · Report this
"No, that's YOUR opinion."

Then you should be able to provide a link where Dan is calling for killing Americans.

"World War II- a far more justifiable conflict- had millions of innocent lives destroyed."

And that war was not started by America's invasion of another country.
It was started when Germany invaded another country.
The Iraq war that Dan supported started when America invaded Iraq.

"And, no I don't want to see video of a US helicopter shooting some children in Iraq."

Here it is.…
What did they say on that video?
"Well it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle."
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 1, 2013 at 11:12 AM · Report this

First: There is no such thing as "collateral" damage in a war. That is horse shit warmongering propaganda.

Savage has never admitted he made a mistake and has never apologized for his sickening enthusiastic support for invading and occupying Iraq. He never has.

In fact Savage only delayed (his quote "for now") his support of the invasion at the last minute, based basically on the logistics of Bush's plan. A plan in which Savage repeatedly stated how he felt the war wasn't wide enough in scope and didn't involve invading enough muslim countries. His use of racists dog whistles at the time were also particularly egregious.

It's hard to see how a wider war of aggression wouldn't involve in MORE violent death, not less.

The idea a grown man doesn't know that invading a country with tanks, bombs, and automatic weapons won't inevitably kill innocent children is absurd. It ALWAS has and it ALWAYS will.

It's therefore impossible to morally reckon Savages anti-gun stand - where he leverages the accidental "collateral" deaths of children for his arguments - and not see the absurd hypocrisy of his support for a war that would as a matter of course kill children. And it did. The deaths of children as a result of our invasion of Iraq number in the tens of thousands. If not more.

It behooves Savage to actually adress this moral inconstancy - which he completely refuses to do even on the 10th anniversary of the war - before taking his posts on gun violence seriously.

Not that there isn't truth to his feeling on guns. It's that they do NOT reconcile with his support of the other form of gun violence - chiefly, war.
Posted by tkc on July 1, 2013 at 12:56 PM · Report this
lolorhone 44

As for "collateral damage", it's the term used for violence and death outside the scope of whatever the war is supposed to be about. Feel what you want about it, that's what it's called, no war-mongering intent from me.
Nobody here said Dan wasn't completely fucking wrong. And I don't think you can really say Dan is fine with the violent death of children overseas because of his stupid endorsement of war that became an unprecedented catastrophe. Regardless, what do you think you're accomplishing here?
These posts about unnecessary gun death aren't about Dan, they're about unnecessary gun death. They're about the disconnect between domestic policy, the will of the people, the danger the people are in, and the uselessness of our "representation" which is supposed to protect us.
Your pointing out that war is unspeakably cruel is pretty much like saying water is wet. Your pointing out how wrong he was ten years ago is just mildly irritating here on Slog, and completely ineffectual to the world at large and the point at hand.
This is about out-of-control gun violence right now. This is not about Dan's bullshit back then. This is not about Dan at all. What's your endgame here? That the deplorable violence you rightly abhor goes unaddressed? Or that it is only addressed by people you like?
Posted by lolorhone on July 1, 2013 at 1:57 PM · Report this
@42 Since pretty much everybody else seems determined to ignore the soundness of your basic premise (it may have something to do with your tone), I will go ahead and do so: You're probably right that the lives of Iraqi children bear less upon Dan's consciousness than the lives of American children. As far as that goes, I would guess that the lives of children from St. Louis bear less upon Dan's consciousness than the lives of children from Seattle.

Now, before you take a victory lap, you might want to think about the fact that that's just the way people are. We tend to pay attention to the things that are closer to us. Do you know how many children died in Africa today? Me neither, but it was lots and lots more than died in Iraq. And there's no use saying that we didn't cause that, the way we did the Iraq war. The industrialized world continues to get fat off the resources of the developing world and pay little attention to the carnage it causes. That includes me, sadly (and probably you, as well. I don't know you at all, but I would be surprised to find that someone living in poverty in the developing world had access to the internet along with any interest in an alternative Seattle weekly).

If we truly felt horror and outrage at the deaths of all children of the world equally, we'd be immobilized by the sheer weight of it. So we become callous and unfeeling to a certain degree. It doesn't make it ok, but to act like Dan's unique in this regard or that it strips him of the moral authority to advocate that we adopt a sensible policy on guns seems willfully obtuse.
Posted by pemulis on July 1, 2013 at 2:21 PM · Report this

Of course. However, you're moving the the goal post here.

It's less about the distance we have from various tragedies and more about the part we play in creating tragedies or at the very least the part we play in crafting the perceptions of what IS tragic.

Dan played an active role in endorsing and arguing FOR an immoral war. A war that he knew damn well was going to kill innocent children.

Gun rightists argue the death of children is worth the cost of freedom just as Dan argued the death of Iraqi children was worth the end of "islamo fascism." Both arguments are morally invalid. Both use the same ends/means bullshit.

Also: Attempting to distinguish so-called collateral killing in war from collateral killing resulting from the right own a gun is a moral dodge that requires epic cognitive dissonance and some fairly strained acrobatic logic.

Until Savage comes clean and admits he was wrong to support a war that killed tens of thousands of children I can't take him as any sort of serious moral voice on this particular issue.

Savage and most people in this thread need to dispense with the myth that America's love affair war is markedly different from it's love affair with guns. America's gun culture is basically the same as it's war culture.

Posted by tkc on July 1, 2013 at 2:37 PM · Report this
"... You're probably right that the lives of Iraqi children bear less upon Dan's consciousness than the lives of American children."

Yes. Dan has publicly called for and publicly supported the invasion of Iraq (Islamo-fascists) which would directly involve killing and maiming Iraqi children. And he publicly referred to people who opposed that as "stupid".

"As far as that goes, I would guess that the lives of children from St. Louis bear less upon Dan's consciousness than the lives of children from Seattle."

When did Dan call for an invasion of St. Louis?
Please post your link.
Because Dan has posted his link to children being shot in Ohio.
Or are you confusing indifference with active, public support?
Because they are not the same.
And posting links to them does not seem to be indifferent.
And where are the links to dead Iraqi (Islamo-fascists) children?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 1, 2013 at 2:55 PM · Report this

I agree with you that Dan was wrong and never righted himself, despite his attempt to backpedal. And I agree that the actions which he supported caused the unjust deaths of men and women and children. Now, whether he is actually culpable in those deaths is a debatable point, as I believe that Dan's support for the war made exactly fuck-all difference in the way the whole thing was handled.

What I'm saying is that the idea that if a person loses the right to speak about the deaths of children caused by gun violence because they are complicit in other deaths of children, then we all are just going to have to shut the hell up. Our self-obsessed consumer culture is way more destructive than our gun culture or war culture ever thought about being. We're all (that is to say, all of us who reap the benefits of living in an industrialized western nation) hypocrites. And, unlike Dan's completely ineffectual support for the war, we actually effectuate this culture (albeit in infinitesimal fractions) every time we reach for a coke, for instance.


I said I was guessing. If I had a link, I would not have been guessing. Also, I do not know how to post links.

More substantively, I wasn't confusing indifference with active, public support. As outlined above, I am claiming outright that our en masse indifference is a lot more harmful and deserves a lot more moral condemnation than Dan's public and outright support for the war.

And yet we should probably still talk about the fact that our country could save the lives of people (including children people) by imposing sensible gun regulations, despite our other moral failings. Geez, way to miss a point.
Posted by pemulis on July 1, 2013 at 3:49 PM · Report this
@48 Who said Dan doesn't have the right to speak out about guns? Who's impugning or impinging his rights here? Nobody.

It's that he isn't a CREDIBLE moral voice.

Particularly when he holds up "innocent" life as a crusading rhetorical cudgel to support his arguments against guns and yet dismisses "innocent" life outright when endorsing war. The dude shit on people making the innocent life argument in the lead up to that war. He just shit right on them. So. Fuck him. He cannot have it both ways.

And the only reason Savage get's traction on the gun issue is he has his own captive megaphone called The Stranger and a cadre of mindless fan-monkeys happy to dismiss his incredulity and forget 2001-2004 like it never happened. Nobody want to remember how unethically he used this megaphone then. And that is fucked up.

Until he reconciles this he has no credibility on this issue at all. Even if he is right. No. Especially because he is right.
Posted by tkc on July 1, 2013 at 4:09 PM · Report this
"More substantively, I wasn't confusing indifference with active, public support."

You may not think so but you were.

"As outlined above, I am claiming outright that our en masse indifference is a lot more harmful and deserves a lot more moral condemnation than Dan's public and outright support for the war."

Of course you are.
And Dan just posted another link to another child being shot in America.…
So it seems that Dan's indifference only extends so far.

"Geez, way to miss a point."

No. I understand your point.
And your point is irrelevant.
My point is that Dan is treating the life of an Iraqi child (Islamo-fascist) as worth less than the life of an American child.
Whether Africa is being exploited is irrelevant to that.
Whether it is moral for Africa to be exploited is irrelevant to that.
Dan is okay with calling publicly for an invasion (Islamo-fascists) that would directly result in the deaths of Iraqi children. People who do not agree with him are "stupid".
Dan is publicly not okay with American children being shot.

Shooting an Iraqi child (Islamo-fascists) is okay.
Shooting an American child is not okay.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on July 1, 2013 at 4:19 PM · Report this
Lissa 51
@49 & 50: So why are you here, day in and day out? Why continue to read the writing of some one you don't find "credible"?
Do you actually think that Dan lies awake sobbing (Quietly! So as to not wake Terry!) into his pillow because of the two of you?
Y'all have pretty inflated idea of your own importance and what's owed you.
Back then Dan was dead fucking wrong. Wrong wrong wrongity wrong. He disappointed me, he disappointed you, and he disappointed pretty much all the rest of his "mindless fans". He may never be able to admit that to your exacting satisfaction, and that is just tough, and it has fuck all to do with what we are talking about here and now.
But hey! Iffen ya'd rather focus on old wounds instead of the work that needs to happen right here and now, I'm sure the gun lobby will be tickled to death that you are wasting your time and effort in a some what Maoist insistence on flagilating Dan for insufficient doctrinal purity rather than getting up in their grill.
Good for you!
Posted by Lissa on July 3, 2013 at 11:23 PM · Report this

Add a comment


Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy