Tim Walz has said he’s “sick and tired of hearing about thoughts and prayers” following the Apalachee High School shooting in Georgia, which left four dead.
Walz, who was named as Kamala Harris’ running mate in the race for the White House in August, spoke about the Wednesday (4 September) shooting at a campaign rally at the Highmark Amphitheater in Erie, Pennsylvania on Thursday.
He told his supporters: “We believe in the freedom to send our kids to school without being shot dead in the hall.”
“The news cycle moves on within a day,” he commented of the incident, adding that kids had returned to school feeling excited and “now we have four dead”.
easy: strict gun control. look at Europe.
Sadly that won’t happen because Americans are special - and I say ‘special’ in that Midwestern-US, ‘bless their heart’ way
The US government tries to pass (or enforce) any meaningful gun legislation, a third of the country stamps their feet and tells ‘NO!’ and the gov’t backs down. Rinse & repeat
shiiiii it doesnt even get to us s’more like 2/3 of the country asks for (x) regulation, the govt starts making noises about regulating (x), a bunch of political ads come out to convince public (x) regulation is bad, contributions come from the (x) companies to the politicians regulating (x), business (x) is added to the commitee deciding rules for (x), regulation is watered down or outright defeated.
at almost no point in the process is the public will treated as anything other than a problem to solve.
Europe also has things like universal healthcare and much less of an opioid crisis and whatnot. Without those, this wouldn’t have been prevented – the kid would’ve just used a knife or explosives or something instead.
i agree with specific point you’re making about the cause of shootings being lack of healthcare access in the US. You are also correct in my opinion that all three things are necessary for a healthy society. I think you might be missing your own point here with a typical assumption i see thrown out by the media, that asking for one of those 3 things precludes our ability to have the others. In other words, that we can’t advocate equally for all 3 at the same time!
The idea that it is impossible for the US govt to work on these things in tandem over DECADES (these issues are DECADES in the making) is pervasive, effective, and inhibits progress on any. So why does it persist?
Somehow while we know we should have them all, we are convinced to argue we cannot have one without the other first. Should not ask for one without the other more important issue first.
The thing i’m trying to say is, yes we can. The government is (yaknow, hypothetically) able to tackle multiple issues at once and anyone who gets tricked into arguing which one we should pick allows the big G to have an excuse for not working on ANY of them.
As you say, without all three the problems will not cease, they’ll just change shape. All the more reason to advocate for each, always, until they’re tackled, one by one.