Debra Messing is involved with the same charity for gun safety and awareness which Julianne Moore supports: Everytown for Gun Safety. The way Moore has explained it, Everytown has some very practical solutions to control access to guns, namely running background checks and closing the loopholes which exist for gun shows and online sales. Incidentally Obama issued an executive order earlier this year to accomplish this, but without the support of the legislative branch it will be hard to effect change. Hopefully we can see some of these changes under President Clinton. (Yes I’m an optimist on several fronts.)
Wednesday there was a tragic shooting at UCLA, which ended up being a murder suicide in which a man from Minnesota murdered his former engineering professor, William S. Klug. The latest in that terrible case is that the shooter also murdered his estranged wife in Minnesota before driving to Los Angeles, where he intended to kill Klug and another professor, who was not harmed. It was yet another senseless shooting which organizations like Everytown hope to prevent.
Messing was taking part in a pre-planned awareness day for gun safety, and so instead of putting it off or just tweeting support for the victims at UCLA, she decided to incorporate the shootings into her selfie, and the result was… not good. She posted a photo of herself in a gun control T-shirt and tweeted that she was watching the shooting on TV. (She’s since deleted the tweet but the NY Daily News had it.)
Yes that came across as self absorbed. At least she didn’t use a bunch of hashtags though, props for that. Many people started calling her out for it and the good news is that she apologized. Here’s her apology. I would assume that someone else wrote it for her, judging by her tweets.
PLEASE READ: pic.twitter.com/LccmvPpOcn
— Debra Messing (@DebraMessing) June 1, 2016
If that was the case why didn’t Messing just tweet a simple message that she was saddened by events at UCLA, that she hopes everyone is safe and her thoughts go out to the families and loved ones? Instead she made it about herself and it was tone deaf, but it does make sense in context.
Just before posting her full apology, Messing posted a series of tweets explaining herself, stating “The pix was being taken just AS the news broke. I thought the horrendous irony of the timing shown [sic] a brighter light in the crisis and need for all of us to do something together to make the US safer. Sorry if it was misconstrued and caused offense. That’s the last thing I want to do.”
As far as celebrity apologies go, her full apology is a decent one. I wish celebrities wouldn’t use the “sorry you misunderstood/sorry you were offended” line. She should have just said “I messed up, this was dumb and I acted in the heat of the moment,” but she explained the circumstances and it wasn’t bad.
photos credit: WENN.com
I guess I’m not seeing why what she said was bad?
Agreed! Surely she has a good point.
It is kinda tacky to post a selfie when people are getting shot and killed. I totally get her point about the irony, but no. She would have been better off just posting a pic of the shirt with a brief statement about gun violence.
If she waited for a time when there was no gun violence to post her selfie, it would never be done.
So sad. And so true, @Mare.
Right? Tweeters are so sensitive, hoping to hop on the outrage bandwagon.
–TheRealPinky
Me either. I could see that she shouldn’t have added the selfie to the same post, sure, but if she’s advocating for gun safety, would yet another act of gun violence be the right time to speak on it?
Good grief. Finding it almost impossible to find what she did or wrote offensive.
Yeah.
Agree. I read and reread to make sure I wasn’t missing something. Why don’t the twitter detectives go after the maniacs who commit these horrendous neverending shootings instead of people’s reactions. Oh yeah that’s right, because the cowards always kill themselves AFTER they do their carnage. Only in America, which sadly is true since we hold the title for the most mass shootings.
+1 cant find the problem here. People r getting exhausting. I’m glad to see more people getting involved in promoting gun safety.
Let’s not pretend that Debra Messing is the problem here! America, I wish you’d sort out your gun control.
Yeah, you might not want to light that particular fuse. There are some very well informed commenters here.
Notice you did not post your country of origin.
I’m not taking any got damn blame for Americas gun control issue as I am not a politician or a lobbyist. The best I can do is tell my representative what I want. Will they listen? NO
I can petition, protest, cry…. but I don’t have access to power.
There is still a TAMPON TAX. I am taxed for bleeding. A tax for being of reproductive age.
My government does that to me. Why do you think my government will listen to me when I ask them to do something about minorities and children being killed every single day?
Do you know how politics work at all? How much influence do you have over your government?
I don’t eat sugar. Am I to blame for diabetes on the rise in children? Hell no I’m not.
Sit down with blaming citizens for things the man won’t let them control.
@Name, I don’t disagree with you on most of what you said, but ‘the man’ is our democratically elected government. Citizens actually are in charge of these decisions. We need to vote people out of office. We actually do have influence over our government.
Alarmjaguar, that’d be nice, but in reality, our vote means nothing. Our president is elected by the electoral college, not the popular vote. Can you vote in/out Congress and the Senate? Sure. But by the time politicians get to that level, they have pieced themselves into so many pockets (to pay for financing of campaigns, “favors”, etc.), pretty much any authenticity to the people who elected them is long gone.
Sorry this sounds so pessimistic, sigh, but I’ve seen too many election promises go unfulfilled in my lifetime. I WISH there was a way of real change, but honestly, I don’t think there is. It’s really all a “House of Cards” scenario. The saying goes: “”Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.” – Lord Acton, 1887
Yep…almost all guns used in violence in Mexico and Canada are smuggled in from…guess where? THE STATES!
Yet they always cry “We need our guns! Because reasons!”
You got any stats to back thats shit up?
I hope “President” Clinton bans alcohol, cars, and sugar because each one of those kills more people/year than guns.
She is an idiot. Take away the rights of the sensible gun owners so only the criminals will carry.
Those sensible gun owners you speak of should not have this problem then. These are not difficult things that’s being asked of people who want to purchase guns. Or sellers.
My issue is that there is almost no empirical data that actually suggests that these measures would actually reduce most gun crime. Most gun crime doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Most of it is linked to things like gang violence, the drug trade, etc. Gun control groups like to focus on things like mass shootings, school violence, etc. But those things are actually pretty rare. Most gun crime originates in low-income areas where poverty is very high. Gun violence is a symptom of a larger issue, but gun control almost never brings that up. A lot of people are very well-intentioned, but they tend to be comfortably off and white and they think that less (legal) guns will equal less crime. That is a fantasy that they tell themselves.
The single biggest driver of gun violence is poverty. This has been proven time and time again. Poor people are more likely to feel the pressure to engage in illegal activities to get by, which then precipitates arming themselves (often illegally). Then that leads to violence. I can’t support people who advocate for gun control without addressing the real root causes here, which I see very few people doing or even making that connection.
Sam, your comments about poverty and the root causes of gun violence sound pretty disingenuous, especially as the UCLA incident had nothing to do with the factors you mention. I can’t support people who think the answer to gun violence — of any kind — is more guns.
Esmom: except, yeah, no.
Like I said, if you actually crunch the numbers, shootings like the UCLA one are RARE. Your chances of dying in a “mass” shooting are quite low. If you want to argue with me, go look up the data and get back to me and argue on that. Otherwise you’re just blowing smoke.
In January 2011, the Atlantic published an interesting analysis of many factors associated with gun violence. Poverty was correlated, but so were several others to nearly the same degree, such as percentage of working class jobs, “red state” voting patterns, and percentage of high school students carrying weapons on school property.
At the same time, researchers reported “Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).”
On June 13, 2015, USA Today also carried a state-by-state analysis of gun violence. The answers are not as simplistic as “poverty,” though it is tempting to try to blame gun violence (as well as many other of societal problems) on the poor. Blaming something global like poverty is also a useful way of kicking the can down the road.
And, by the way, American Blacks and Hispanics have poverty rates greatly exceeding the average. So people start to draw their own conclusions.
Yet in a December 18, 2015 report on a Pew survey, the Washington Post said, “About 41 percent of white households own guns, compared to just 19 percent of black households, according to a 2014 Pew survey. And white Americans (62 percent) are more likely than black Americans (54 percent) to say that gun ownership does more to protect people than endanger personal safety.”
Gun violence in America is complicated, but these patterns appear to reflect and prolong the 19th-century fears of Southern landowners and slaveholders that they could not control black insurrection. They were outnumbered and had to resort to intolerable degrees of oppression, leaving them in constant jeopardy of losing their lives, beyond their wealth AND their “way of life.”
Sam, I never disputed your data. Nor did I say that poverty wasn’t a problem in the US. I just said that it’s disingenuous to bring up those factors in light of another mass shooting.
I’m familiar with the Atlantic research. However, the problem with it is that they chopped the data. First, look at the piece above: they only counted deaths. They removed all people wounded and shootings that did not result in any injuries. So they actually dramatically reduced the actual pool right off the bat.
They also skewed the results by taking the scope to the state level. Here’s why that will create a skew. Many states in America, especially the Midwestern ones, are “stratified” states. That basically means that they contain both areas of very low poverty and violence and areas of high poverty/high violence. For example, let’s talk about a prime example of this: Illinois. As a state, Illinois is actually in the bottom half of states for poverty, with a poverty rate of around 11%. That’s not super low, but it’s much lower than some others. However, let’s look at Chicago. The overall poverty rate there is notable higher, at around 15-16%. As I hope you’re aware, Chicago is considered one of the country’s biggest hotspots for gun violence (despite having some tough local laws). So if we take that 15% percent poverty rate for the city overall and then break it down further, something else comes out. The majority of shootings in Chicago happen in the areas known as the South an West sides. If you isolate them and check for poverty, the rate is near 60%. SIXTY percent. compared to 15% for the city average and 11% for the state. That is telling. And you can do this in the vast majority of states (I just used this as an example).
So that’s why the Atlantic data has serious limits. They limited the sample pool and then skewed the data by declining to examine any level lower than the state level.
(And Esmom: then why argue? And also: the FBI defines mass shooting as an incident with a minimum of 4 victims (killed or wounded). The UCLA shooter got 2, so you’re using the wrong terminology)
@ Sam: You were the first one to use the phrase “mass shooting” (though you did use use sarcasm quotes around “mass”). You really can’t complain that Esmom followed your lead and used the same language. If anything, it reads like you intentionally set her up to make the mistake. (Okay, I don’t think you were *really* trying to trap her, but it does read badly! You might owe her an apology for that one.)
I also agree with Esmom’s point: why are you bringing up poverty when it’s not a factor in this specific crime? You don’t have to target the biggest contributing factor to make a difference. That’s like saying we shouldn’t bother to try curing cancer because too many people smoke. It’s okay to target small things and make a small difference. It’s better than doing nothing.
Sam I realize the shooter actually only murdered two people. His plan apparently was to kill more people, but you got me. I should have said “the type of shooting that often results in more than four casualties” but it was faster just to type the incorrect terminology. But you can keep reassuring yourself that it’s the poor black gang members in Chicago who are responsible for the US’s appalling gun death rate.
Lucrezia: Because the Messing tweet wasn’t about the UCLA shooting expressly. She was taking part in a pre-determined day of action that is intended to address gun violence in general. The UCLA shooting simply happened to fall on the same day, so many people linked them, but the campaign is general and the date was set far in advance.
Esmom: Except I actually have the data and numbers. You’ve just complained, but you haven’t actually refuted anything I’ve said. The numbers don’t really lie. If you actually want to try disputing them, why not?
What? Debra’s tweet was indeed about UCLA! That’s what everyone was complaining about!!! (Whether it was insensitive of her to reference a specific event that was still unfolding, making it all about her.)
The tweet is posted above, but let me re-type it for you (in case your browser doesn’t show pictures properly or something). “HORRENDOUS Watching news about shooting at UCLA with casualties while taking selfie for 2bring awareness to Gun Violence” Debra’s selfie was attached to that text.
That’s the context Esmom and I are coming from. Focusing on poverty (which was not a factor in the UCLA shootings) and general gun violence seems ironically insensitive in a thread about someone being insensitive about the UCLA shootings.
Nope. The tweet was actually sent out as part of the general Wear Orange campaign. She just incorporated the UCLA shooting into it. Most people who reacted badly to it not because she referenced a current event, but because of the “pensive selfie” that was included. Numerous other people sent tweets referencing the event and the wear orange campaign, and they didn’t receive backlash (beyond the normal amount). Messing took heat due to the selfie.
Sam, then why is it such a problem and fight to put these laws in action? It wouldn’t hurt the law abiding citizens purchasing a gun once they passed a background check… But obviously the gun industry would be hurt bc so many buyers would not be able to pass a background check, hence fighting so hard to not let these new laws pass. I get what your saying and have seen the stats, but you can’t tell me people wouldn’t be fighting so hard against these laws if there wasn’t some truth to what these laws are being put in place for: making it more difficult (no one said impossible) for easy gun buying by the wrong people. If you have someone buy it for you they will have to be willing to risk their information connecting them to whatever that gun does. So don’t see that these laws could hurt anything!
“Gun control groups like to focus on things like mass shootings, school violence, etc. But those things are actually pretty rare”
Mass shootings are happening nearly every day in the United States? How in the world is that “rare”?!?!? There have been 160 mass shootings in the US in 2016 already.
Wow Sam you just got schooled. You should have given up after your first comment.
Why do gun freaks instantly jump to “take away the rights of gun owners?” You do not HAVE the right to own a gun without regulation. Read the the constitution – A WELL-REGULATED militia.
Exactly.
The car argument boggles my mind, because cars are heavily regulated. You need a license to drive a car. You have to wear a seat belt. There are signs and rules and lights and lanes and… guess what? Every single time another car regulation was passed, fatalities decreased. There were angry manufacturers and citizens every time, too, but they couldn’t stand in the way of progress.
If we’re really operating under the absurd logic that a literal weapon is equal to a transportation method — it isn’t, and it should be regulated MORE heavily instead of LESS heavily — then it makes absolutely no sense to pretend regulation is a big no-no. Regulation is the only reason there aren’t more traffic fatalities.
I’ve had to cut off a few FB friends because I got tired of seeing these self-righteous and ignorant posts after people died.
The worst lately was one particularly insidious propaganda line put forward the past few years by the NRA that if only Jews had guns, the Holocaust never would have happened. There are so many disgusting problems with that I don’t know where to begin (but others have, and it’s searchable).
A small hand gun for protection, a shotgun for bagging rabbits? Maybe. What astonishes me is the view that there’s nothing odd about a householder owning a cupboard full of AK47 assault rifles and suchlike. What next, a nuke in the garage?
…which is exactly why alcohol, cars, and sugar are subject to STRICT REGULATIONS.
Why should guns — you know, the only products in the bunch that were actually designed for the sole purpose of taking lives — be exempt from the rules that apply to virtually every other product on the market?! Why should their manufacturers have immunity, but the companies that make our food and produce our cars don’t?
Yes, exactly!!!
Because that’s not how products liability works. You said it yourself, “product designed for the purpose of taking lives.” Legally speaking, to sustain a claim of liability against a manufacturer, you have to show that the product malfunctioned in some way or that it was used in an improper way. That’s the general gist of products liability. When a car functions correctly and is used in the proper manner, it doesn’t hurt anybody. But think about it: when a gun is used to kill somebody, no malfunction has occurred. The gun functioned EXACTLY AS IT IS INTENDED. That’s its purpose. So when the killing happens, there is actually NO product liability because the product was used exactly as intended. That’s the distinction and that’s why they have that immunity – because allowing the suits would create a special exception of products liability. And that’s not just me. Bernie Sanders holds the same view, and I actually agree with him on that.
But that’s not what gets proposed. It’s not the equivalent of taking away guns. It’s the equivalent of requiring driver’s licence and registration when you’re driving a car. Even a vast majority of responsible gun owners are FOR background checks and closing the gun show loophole. Why is it such a big deal?
Because they might be slightly inconvenienced. They are selfish, self-absorbed and paranoid. What’s the death of school children compared to their having to wait ten days before they can buy another precious gun? It’s all about them.
I don’t think Debra is championing taking the rights of gun owners. I think trying to put into place some laws that might curb someone in crisis (whether he is dealing with sadness, anger or whatever) from getting a hold of a gun immediately is necessary. And why would anyone need certain military style gun? Nobody is saying that all guns should be illegal. I don’t know any area of life that isn’t somewhat regulated.
I find this argument so ridiculous…where, pray tell, do you think criminals GET THESE GUNS?!
Most of the time they are STOLEN. So if every citizen has a gun…well then guess what? It’s easy for a criminal to break into a car or house and TAKE ONE.
You need to get rid of the guns. You need to make it so there’s LESS guns on the street not “Arm every man, woman and child”.
Honestly you guys are loony tunes with the guns. I can’t imagine living in a country where i’d be terrified to honk at someone in traffic out of fear they’ll pull out their gun and shoot me.
It’s not that simple, pinetree. I wish it was.
I know this is super shallow, and nothing to do with the post, but I dislike her so much because of her character in Will & Grace.
She was by far the most annoying and uncharismatic one.
About the post, I think she really didn’t mean any harm, but she came off very tone deaf.
It was totally the Karen and Jack show, I agree.
Gabby I too instinctively dislike her… is something about her face that transmit like lack of charisma? Pointiness? IDK? but I couldn’t even really hang with WIll and Grace specifically cause of her LOL
if the manufacturers of guns/weapons and ammo were held accountable (like other industries) for what happens with their products there would be a lot less gun violence. but no one wants to put the onus on them, because $$$$$. guns would be expensive and very difficult to purchase if they had to face all the lawsuits.
as it stands, the makers have flooded the country with weapons and don’t have to be responsible for ANY of it.
it is near impossible to get a permit for a gun in NYC and they just don’t have the problems other places have. because the truth is, the less guns there are, the less gun violence.
isn’t this why the uk is known as knife island?
smh
Other industries don’t have the NRA. Nobody goes after the gun industry because they don’t want to get bullied by the NRA.
I’ve never heard the UK referred to as “knife island” ?
“Knife Island”? Never heard of it. Whoever says it doesn’t know geography either, as the UK isn’t an island, part of it being on that other island, Ireland. I know that’s not the point (no pun intended).
And they don’t want to lose the campaign contribution $$$ from the NRA.
I’m troubled by the fact that people are somewhat “forced” into making public apologies for everything these days. Yes, maybe, the “selfie” was a little much, but she had nothing to apologize for….
Same here. I’m trying and failing to find what was offensive about her post. I thought her initial tweet was pretty clear. I will acknowledge though that that just cause it’s not offensive to me, doesn’t mean it’s not offensive to anyone else.
Yes, I’m not sure what the uproar is about. Maybe that she sort of made it about her? I agree, I’m sort of not seeing the huge deal.
what did I miss?
when did selfies become passé & offensive?
FINALLY!
regardless – her selfie was effective, was it not?