“It’s NOT a gun control issue, it’s a mental health issue!”
“Then we’re expanding access to mental healthcare?”
“Fuck no, that’s SOCIALISM and psychiatry is bullshit anyway!”
It’s frustrating because I believe it’s a mental health issue primarily. But god forbid we actually help people deal with their trauma and pain.
It can be both! And a problem with bullying in schools. And lack of ways to escape poverty. But having any changes that affect any of those things is verboten to the places where land gets more of a vote than people in cities do.
Never thought if describing the electoral college that way but it is actually a pretty good analogy
Don’t get me wrong, I’m for gun control. I just believe that if we lived in some utopia with zero mental health issues, it wouldn’t be an issue regardless.
Therapy and meds can’t fix poverty perpetrated by the ruling class.
But I generally agree.
And did you know utopia means “place that cannot exist” while eutopia means “a perfect place”. Not correcting you, I just think it’s funny that euphemistic drift has flopped it fucky.
I actually had no idea, that’s interesting, I’ve never seen that. Gonna use eutopia way more now tho lol
That semantic drift happened in the 1600s. It’s meant “any perfect place” for 500 years.
Hahaha, semen.
It’s not even a mental health issue either, ultimately! The traumas that result in mental health issues themselves have a cause, which tends to boil down to systemic inequity of some form or another. And our rulers not only have fuck-all interest in fixing that, but also a vested interest in actively perpetuating it.
I definitely feel some kind of way about this because dead children seems to be the primary issue from an outside perspective and ending easy access to weapons would be the single most effective way to fix that.
but without proper mental healthcare these people will then just have a knife party and take slightly less people with them … so there’s also that.
Or a car or a bomb…guns are just the tool being used currently.
The systematic issues our society faces are the root cause and until we resolve those, this will continue to happen.
This thread seems to be downplaying the effectiveness of guns. Obviously, given the cancerous gun culture being what it is, there’s no way I’ll be able to convince anyone who’s already decided that guns aren’t a problem.
Just for the rest of the world, I’m just going to point out that there are sane folks here in the US who fully recognize that guns are definitely the problem and aren’t going to point to the ludicrous notion of “a car or a bomb” as the next obvious substitute for firearms mowing down children in classrooms across the country.
You must be blind if you think that other weapons aren’t used. Our society needs to be fixed, Pandoras box is opened, you can’t fix an issue if you don’t focus on the underlying issues that are the true cause.
But, like, let’s be real - if we had no guns, less kids would die.
You know, Not banning guns would be an interesting stance from the Pro-Life party if Carlin hadn’t already pointed out how duplicitous they are on that front.
If I could snap my fingers and all the guns vanished, I would, because it would mean no one would ever need to defend themselves ever again, but we don’t exist in that world.
Fuck those people. Universal healthcare to include complete mental health support and well being as a primary focus
“Fuck no, that’s SOCIALISM and psychiatry is bullshit anyway!”
I’m sure I’m not alone in thinking that people who think/say this, have mental health issues. We are lost.
Education is everything, that’s why they love to go after it. They don’t want free thinkers but indoctrinated clones of themselves.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking the people pushing this are doing so on ideological grounds - they don’t give a single fuck about any of this - it’s just an issue they can exploit to rally the common clay, salt of the earth folk.
They just say in order to solve the mental health issue, people just need more jebus.
For those who haven’t heard, yes, there was another school shooting, this time a highschool in Georgia (United States, obviously). 2 students and 2 teachers were killed, nine people injured, and the suspect is in custody. (How they’re not dead is beyond me)
I’ve gotten so used to school shootings that I see one like that and think “hooray, only four deaths!”
Unfortunately it did work out better than others, and yet two teachers and two 14 year old children were killed.
The FBI had been out to see the 14yr old who murdered classmates and teachers. Spoken with his parents, and him. He denied everything, no probable cause, so they put the schools on alert, and that made for a quicker response.
Which means this went really well by comparison to other school shootings, and yet it clearly wasn’t good enough - two 14 year old students and two teachera died.
The FBI had been out to see the 14yr old who murdered classmates and teachers. Spoken with his parents, and him. He denied everything, no probable cause, so they put the schools on alert, and that made for a quicker response.
Oh, so we knew this kid was a problem but we didn’t actually do anything but tell the school to be ready to get shot up.
What a fucking stupid country.
They also went to the kids house and investigated, but they didn’t have proof of anything that would meet any criteria for arrest, yeah.
So they discussed with the parents, discussed with the school, discussed with the police, etc. I can’t say I blame the FBI here for what they were able to do based on anonymous reports about comments made online. I wouldn’t feel comfortable with giving any federal agency just free reign to arrest on anonymous reports alone, that’s just opening a new form of swatting to me.
But clearly, its not enough, and that’s the issue. For example, restricting the access to guns would have been good. Restricting access on a larger scale would be better.
Instead… We have two teachers and two 14yr old kids dead.
The school could have suspended him after hearing he was investigated by the FBI. I wonder if the school even told any of the parents about this. I’d be furious if the school knew this kid was a threat and did nothing to keep him away from other students.
I gotta stop talking about this and find some funny memes because my kid is currently at a high school now, and could be the next victim, and not having any power or knowledge about someone shooting them fills me with rage and frustration.
Not really - same problem, no proof it was him that posted. The kid having access to guns after being seen as a person who might do this, that’s the problem.
The parents doing functionally nothing is a problem.
The total lack of any change from this is also a problem.
My kids are younger, but unfortunately that just means more years of worry at this point, because nothing is changing.
The problem is that the administrators are too busy following the rules to deal with anything, from bullying to shootings. I bet they’d let a baby die in a hot car because it’s against the rules to break the window.
4 victims is the minimum for it to count as a “mass shooting” by the FBI, which seems like both too many and not enough at the same time.
Yeah I was watching something on TV and they cut to a special news report to cover this. I was shocked. Isn’t there a school shooting pretty much every day now? Why did this warrant cutting into valuable day time TV programming? So I’m watching this breaking news wondering what’s so special about this particular shooting that can’t wait until the nightly news at 10:00, and the local police chief is giving a press conference breaking down in tears about how he never thought he would have to handle a school shooting and I’m like has your dimbass been paying attention to anything that’s been going on in this country for the last few decades? I would expect you to have a manual on your desk with procedures on how to handle this. Instead this yokel is rambling on about good and evil. I just smh.
It’s a little less than once per week, on average. School shootings are much more rare. Wikipedia has the list, but it makes me too depressed to go through and tally it up to get the average.
Considering there are tens of thousands of schools across the US, most cops will never have to deal with a mass shooting, much less a school shooting.
Not quite daily, but yeah there have been a lot
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(2000–present)
I had to do an unfortunate amount of scrolling after clicking 2020s…
Quick edit: by gawd the kid’s name was literally Colt
No there isn’t, the media and gun control groups love to act like there is. The reality is much more nuanced than guns bad. Ban them and all this magically stops
Yeah. It’s only one every week!
Yea…no it’s not.
Even NPR did a report on it:
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/08/27/640323347/the-school-shootings-that-werent
But you’ll ignore it and keep eating the bullshit from GVR and other anti-2a groups.
Hahahaha. That’s from 2018 with data from the 2015-2016 school year. Fucking hilarious.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(2000–present)
https://www.calendar-365.com/week-number.html
I know it’s amazingly presumptuous of me to assume you can figure out the rest, but I’ll let you go ahead and do that.
Are you suggesting because its not super recent it’s wrong? The fuck…
Also, you’re wiki article literally proves my point.
First line in 2020
An individual who was not a student accidentally shot himself in the leg in the parking lot of Glades Central High School.[488]
Yea…counted as a school shooting.
Will probably work better than whatever is done now. Which is fuck all.
It won’t, we fix the underlying foundation. You don’t repair a house with foundation issues by painting the walls.
It’s literally the foundation in your stupid analogy. But whatever, it’s your kids, what do I care.
I’ll keep upvoting these Onion posts every week it happens.
No it’s not, people don’t become violent because of an object…and you’re right, if you don’t live here then keep your nose out of the issue.
Once people think it’s normal then that becomes a culture. That is even harder to remove.
How they’re not dead is beyond me
The boy was white
Oh that explains it
As non American I wonder. There was a crime committed, police couldn’t do anything to prevent it, it’s not the first or the tenth such crime, obviously it will happen again. Will anyone do something about it? Or the government(the entity made to prevent such things) answer is just “till next time boys”?
Many of us have the same question. Typically, when these questions are bought to our elected officials, we get something along the lines of “Thoughts and prayers.”
I’m late to this post, but now there has been another one, in Maryland
My opinion is that these shootings are a greater failure in this country than simply gun control. There is a LOT we need to work on to decrease mass shootings. While I admit, I am more on the personal responsibility side of the gun control debate, I am not against well thought through legislation. I don’t think that most of the proposals for gun control are rational, detailed, and written with an even cursory understanding of firearms.
To start to address mass shootings, I believe that we need to expand our healthcare in this country. Both physical and mental healthcare. If people are physically well, and can get treatment that doesn’t threaten to bankrupt them, then they will have more opportunities to develop better coping mechanisms. They will be able to seek healthcare options and not feel like they are left to fend for themselves. The isolation from a society that doesn’t care or help them is detrimental, and while I have no studies to back it up, I would think that a society with a healthcare system thats prerogative is the patient instead of profit would help.
I think the aspect of mental healthcare speaks for itself. So people don’t lash out and can seek other means of dealing with issues. I also believe that the stigma of seeking mental healthcare and it’s ability to impact people’s rights and job prospects is a hindrance. We should not make it so that if someone seems help, that they are punished for it.
I believe we have a big culture shift that needs to occur. Too much do we use rhetoric that reinforces that firearms and gun violence is the ultimate solution to a disagreement. “Fuck around and find out” when used in the context of firearms is terrible. Firearms should be considered the last resort to protect life. Not property and not your feelings.
Firearms are not conflict resolution! We need to work to give people better ways of solving and deescalating conflicts.
We need to work on our wealth disparity. We should be elevating our poorest so that they don’t have to resort to violence or crime. As most firearm crimes are not mass shootings, we need to address the other parts of firearm use.
We need to work on our community involvement. Bring people together, break down the walls between us, and get past the cliques.
There is a lot we need to do, but gun control is only a small piece of solving gun violence.
Addition:
Stop the 24 hour news cycle and please please please stop naming criminals by name and showing their faces. Delete the “claim to fame” angle that comes with horrible crimes.
For community involvement, what comes to mind for me is: walkable neighbourhoods, libraries even in small towns and local sports clubs.
But there must be a minimum of gun laws: Buying, owning, operating only under license, storage at home in a safe and ammunition in a separate safe. That’s really the bare minimum.
Regarding the news cycle. Yes! Stop the 24 hour, constant fear being fed to the populace.
You are remarkably safe in your own home. Get rid of the fear mongering!
Stop making national news of local issues. The constant national attention to some random horrible things that doesn’t affect 99.99% of the viewership doesn’t need to be highlighted.
I’m not against gun laws, but I’m going to disagree with your minimums. Anything regarding storage is essentially unenforceable until after a tragedy has occurred. It can’t be used to preempt a shooting but only to punish the owners afterwards. Those sort of things need to be community driven. The gun community should be talking about storage more and shaming those that don’t follow it.
It also implies that everyone’s situation at home allows them 1) to purchase two safes and 2) to have room for two safes and 3) limits their ownership of either guns or ammo to the size of that safe. It also doesn’t make much sense to have two safes if the person doing the shooting is the one that is buying the ammo and guns in the first place. It also places undue burdens on those that do not have children and do not have children that come into their home.
As much as it is laughed at in California, but when you buy a gun you either need to bring a lock or buy a lock with it. They are the cheapest things, but it’s at least a minimum safety that isn’t onerous. Even if no one uses them once they get the gun home.
As for operating under a license, what would that do beyond the existing restrictions for procuring firearms? Do they expire and what would happen then?
We need comprehensive laws grounded in addressing specific issues, not something to create an idealistic and narrow view of what gun ownership is or should be.
I think we should have federal programs on gun information and educational programs. We can teach people and build a culture on gun safety and storage. Maybe programs to subsidize the purchasing of safes and reimburse or reward owners that make safe choices.
Other countries have random gun inspections for licenced gun holders, to make sure they are stored safely. like you said, a cultural shift is needed; that would be part of it.
Anything regarding storage is essentially unenforceable until after a tragedy has occurred.
One could require a receipt or proof of purchase for a safe or a lock when buying a gun.
It also implies that everyone’s situation at home allows them 1) to purchase two safes and 2) to have room for two safes and 3) limits their ownership of either guns or ammo to the size of that safe.
That’s intentional.
It also doesn’t make much sense to have two safes if the person doing the shooting is the one that is buying the ammo and guns in the first place.
We need comprehensive laws grounded in addressing specific issues
I was specifically addressing teenagers access to their parents guns, specifically to prevent school shootings.
As for operating under a license, what would that do beyond the existing restrictions for procuring firearms? Do they expire and what would happen then?
Like a car license. You may not be checked all the time, but every once in a while and it’s a crime to not have it if you’re driving.
One could require a receipt or proof of purchase for a safe or a lock when buying a gun.
That’s why in CA they make you buy a lock. But I don’t really know anyone that uses the one they had to buy.
That’s intentional.
This means only rich or well to do people can own guns?
I was specifically addressing teenagers access to their parents guns, specifically to prevent school shootings.
I’m okay with storage laws in homes that are primary residences to minors. But I don’t believe that any storage law on its own prevents it. There is no way to ensure it’s being following once the gun is taken home. It’s why I am much more in favor of trying to influence gun culture to make improper storage stigmatizing.
Like a car license. You may not be checked all the time, but every once in a while and it’s a crime to not have it if you’re driving.
Those with concealed carry licenses do get checked as they are to tell an officer when they are carrying. I wouldn’t be against these laws being federal. As for just ownership, do you just check everyone if they have a license or only when the police see the gun? Or when they go shooting on public BLM land?
The analogy for driving breaks down because you can buy a car without a license. You just can’t drive it on public roads. Though you can on private roads without a license.
Why are you against holding people accountable for their mistakes legally? Are you really arguing this needs such a soft touch as kind words suggesting people take gun safety seriously?
Is this some sort of system of thought where you craft rules set around yourself as the “ideal gun owner”?
Go ahead and try and re-explain this: “It can’t be used to preempt a shooting but only to punish the owners afterwards.” How is punishing bad behavior a bad thing again? When someone is killed by an improperly stored gun, oftentimes family members, we should make sure we are extra nice to the person who made the oopsie?
Oopsie! Sorry nephew, you just were meant to meet god sooner than most, right? Better keep treating guns like a broom or a mop we leave lieing in the corner.
Because I don’t believe in using the justice system for punitive retribution and instead for reformative use.
That punishing people for this will do nothing but sate some perceived need for vengeance.
And, as for me, maybe because I’m empathetic I can only imagine how terrible they feel afterwards and I’d literally be suicidal if one of my firearms were used in a mass shooting or negligent discharge that killed someone. Doubly so if it were my child.
I don’t consider myself the “ideal gun owner.” I’m trying to have a discourse on, if we are bent on using legislation to address this issue, how we can do so in a manner that’s going to have traction in the gun community, have impactful, measurable changes that improve safety, and lastly actually get followed by gun owners.
I personally, don’t think punishing someone after the fact is going to prevent tragedies like this shooting. So instead of having some raging justice boner to fuck these parents we try and address what led to it.
Countries that focus on rehabilitation still have prisons, your fantasy land where we rehabilitate without any form of punishment is ridiculous.
Sure youd feel suicidal, and yet theres stories of family’s that refuse to take guns out of the home even after an accidental shooting or a suicide. So your empathy is taking you in the wrong direction I’m afraid.
Since parents are just now being held accountable, I’m absolutely sure it will have an effect whether laws are passed or not. Holding enablers responsible will prevent people enabling people who shouldn’t have guns.
Reform isnt hard. Ban all semiautomatic weapons outright. Licenses to own the rest. Buy back any gun that is now illegal for 5x original purchase price. Put them all in a giant pile and melt them down. Move on with our lives as crazy people struggle to mass murder with muskets or attempt to buy something on the black market for thousands of dollars.
The news problem is a generational thing. Younger generations overwhelmingly avoid those types of media, and when they do watch it often find the arguments hollow and sensational. Better media literacy likely.
As long as people are alive that watch it, and as long as news is considered entertainment instead of truth, it will keep happening. Best bet is to just turn it off.
Yea. I also think that other forms of “news” that the younger generation use is wholly unregulated. That there is no recourse for “influencers” that fabricate news on those platforms.
Yeah thats a whole other trap on its own, using social media sources that have no legal journalistic requirements to be truthful or make corrections.
For me I try to go to communities that allow a diverse range of perspectives, and then use mainly international media that have solid reputations.
They should just make all guns voice activated and fire only one round at a time. And the shooter has to yell “Avada Kedavra”.
universal healthcare and basic income, paid with increase in the top 1%'s marginal tax rate, would solve a LOT of Americans problems.
Fear of losing basic income is a great crime deterrent.
Are you going to steal from that gas station if you could lose your basic monthly check for 20+ years?
You think kids would drive drunk if you told them that if they were caught, they would lose their basic income for life? Most think it’s a slap on the wrist, maybe some community service, IF they get caught.
damn, now THAT’S a deterrent! Capital punishment? pfft. Losing your monthly living stipend? real shit.
Losing it for life is too drastic and isn’t what any behavior specialist would suggest.
There needs to be a path to earn it back. For example, hours of community service based on the offense and that increase with each offense.
It would also want to incentivize future legislatures excluding people by targeting groups. The drug war and its imbalance towards treatment of minorities as an example.
Its not UBI if not everyone gets it. We don’t have freedom unless everyone can vote, always.
If I murder someone and lose basic income for say five years does it go up to ten years if I murder another person or could it be served concurrently?
I would expect you’d be in prison for at least five years so are you suggesting you’ve killed someone while in prison or that basic income is the only punishment?
In any case, I am not suggesting anything concrete here, just going forward with the thought experiment. Basic income first, then we can work on how to use it as a deterrence.
Oh, I was thinking of it as a replacement of the prison industry. So just let everyone remain free but just lose basic income instead. It interested me because I think I could do without the extra income, save the tax payers money, and accomplish some personal goals at the same time.
Y’all realize what you’re describing is just a poor tax, right? Anyone with significantly higher income over base income would…just break the law anyway.
If we’re talking using money to deter crimes, it needs to be a sliding scale. You’re a millionaire and got a speeding ticket? That’ll be $50,000.
Aw dang it, we are only allowed to use one punishment as a country so I guess you are right. Maybe we could like, lock the rich people that commit crimes in a small room with a bed and a toilet.
I guess you missed the if. The topic is literally regarding monetary related punishments. That does even remotely imply forgoing anything else.
That’s along the lines of what I was thinking. Making care more available is good but still having to get financially destroyed for it potentially isn’t a great incentive to use services
So we just need to solve all depressive disorders, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, etc., across the entire country. Only then can we solve gun violence.
In the vast majority of instances, having a gun in the home is more dangerous for those living in the house than for any potential threat. Its irresponsible at best and at worst it will cause the deaths of those closest to you.
And before you say it, I do believe some people need guns, but you should be required to have a valid reason to own one, and it should be appropriate amount of firepower for that reason.
To “solve” gun violence, yea. But to significantly reduce it, we only need to make progress.
It was sort of meant to be rhetorical.
Even if I agreed with you, gun control has been proven to work across the world, while not a single country has yet to solve mental health in a meaningful way.
I’m not saying that it’s not a part of what needs to happen. Well thought out, thorough gun control is something thats going to be a part of this.
But as shit as it may be to say, with current gun culture, the 2nd amendment, and the 4th amendment protection from unreasonable searches makes the sort of gun control adopted in other countries improbable here.
The suggested legislation that I hear typically revolves around storage, which leading up to a tragedy is unenforceable (4th amendment) and therefore can’t prevent a mass shooting. The banning of firearms wholesale, which is unpopular in so large a part of the population it would be practically impossible. Restrictions based on features that are so ubiquitous it would be like banning smartphones; it’s not that there aren’t guns without them but it’s most guns made within the last few decades.
My perspective is that gun control is the surface level way of dealing with a growing symptom in this country. One that taking away guns doesn’t actually fix. It’s the knee jerk reaction “quick fix.” That doesn’t really fix anything, just hides how deeply broken our society has gotten.
So personally, I’m not against gun control in principle. I’m against the “common sense” gun control proposals. Because many of them are formed with minimal understanding of firearms or from a narrow viewpoint on how people use guns.
(As an aside, I’m against the term “common sense” gun laws because it insults anyone that disagrees, puts them on the defensive, and makes having a good discourse on ways we can work together to solve the issue.)
Or maybe theres nothing different between someone here and in a different country.
People get upset everywhere. Upset people do irrational things. When the possible things someone can do include shoot every nearby person with a rapid fire rifle, then those will happen more often.
Other countries stab or burn or poison, but far less people are killed or injured.
I’ll put it like this, you will never make certain every single person at every moment of the day does not act out in anger. As long as people act out anger in violence, they will seak tools to aid that.
Hence, guns banned by default with exemptions for those that need it, rather than the other way around.
I don’t think anyone is saying that those need to be solved before we can attempt to solve gun violence.
But there is a definite mental health crisis in the USA, and that’s certainly not helping our gun violence issue.
That and abject, perpetual, and generational poverty.
And I’m sure the latter contributes to the former.
deleted by creator
There is a lot we need to do, but gun control is only a small piece of solving gun violence.
Weird how other countries haven’t solved these “other issues”, yet have managed to curb gun violence.
“No way to prevent this, says only country in the world where this regularly happens”
Gun control works on gun violence as surely as antibiotics do on infections. Now can proper hygiene and a healthy populace make it so there’s less need for antibiotics? Yes. But are they still extremely necessary exactly because of how well they work in bacterial infections? Yes.
Gun nuts never have any science to back up their indirect nra propaganda. Gun control advocates do. Here.
https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html . https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/
I’ll stay here to wait for any science at all, but it will never come. What I will get is angry gun nuts using shitty “rhetoric” instead of having a single peer reviewed study.
I never said there was “no way to prevent this” I’m saying there is a fucking shitload we need to do to prevent this and gun control, in whatever form it takes is going to be only a piece of the puzzle.
And no shit, does getting rid of guns get rid of guns violence. You aren’t spouting something revolutionary.
I’m not even against gun control. I’m against the knee jerk reactionary bullshit and narrow viewpoint of anti-gun individuals that don’t want to engage in any serious discussion of HOW to enact gun control other than take away guns.
I’m not a gun nut, and that’s just a rude thing to say. It’s divisive, insulting, and worst of all, it means you’ve already made an opinion and written off anything that I may say.
Yeah as close as this country is to civil war, anyone coming for guns will be met with the wrong end of said guns. It would create all out war here.
There are more guns than people in this country, I don’t see any way to reverse that statistic without further, much more massive and widespread bloodshed.
Other countries are like “we don’t have guns its the obvious solution”. Sure. But your entire culture isn’t predicated on the idea things like gun ownership is considered an inalienable right that can and should be defended with said guns.
I’m all for making things better but I don’t see guaranteed civil war as the best choice here.
Yeah this is the exact type of bullshit I was talking about.
Australia had a very strong gun culture as well. Then Port Arthur happened.
They had a voluntary buyback program and got back what would be the equivalent of about 12 million guns with the current US population.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html
Like I said and I’ll keep saying, people opposing gun control have literally nothing but wanna-be-gotcha shitty indirect NRA propaganda. Of which “no but it wouldn’t work here in the country which is the only country which can’t seem to figure out gun control, because it doesn’t try it, because our country has people who like guns and I’m sure no-one else ever has”.
Yeah I don’t buy it.
Gun buybacks here have been tried probably thousands of times, on smaller scales than at a federal level. They don’t work. They get a few shitty actual guns and there’s even memes around people making zip guns for $5 and turning them in to collect whatever money is offered.
What would undeniably happen is that much of the left here would turn in some of their guns and the vast majority of the right would snicker at the “libtards gibbin up dere freedums” while they buy more guns.
This isn’t Australia, though that sounds like a wonderful place to live.
Also lol @ a 12 million gun “equivalency” when the US has like 320 million people and even more guns.
Let’s math:
Assuming only 1 gun per person, which is laughably low,
12m/320m = 0.0375 or 3.75% of guns
Congrats you’ve collected nearly 4% of the problem from people who were not the problem. Were they the problem, they’d have kept their guns.
They don’t work.
Your local small time buybacks don’t work.
Science shows us that when implemented on a national level, it’s not hard to incentivise it properly.
Just like I said, you never ever have any science, just pathetic “no no no I don’t buy that no no no no”.
Come back when you have even the tiniest bit of some science to show. But you won’t. You’ll reply instantly, but without any science, adamantly stomping your foot on the floor about how “murica so special even science doesn’t wurk”
https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html .
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/
You probably won’t even open those links, because you’ve decided you won’t accept science on the matter. You just like bang-bang-sticks and don’t care for other people, so… fuck science.
Come back with peer reviewed science, or sit down and shut up.
Here’s a breakdown, since you clearly didn’t read it:
Licenses to carry concealed firearms or “shall issue” laws
“In the United States, Lott and Mustard (15) using a times-series design approach and data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) (1977–1992) identified that shall issue laws were associated with lower rates of homicides at the county and state levels. Bronars and Lott (16) also noted evidence that shall issue laws were associated with an apparent increase in the rate of homicides in adjacent counties without shall issue laws (16). Seven other studies (17–23) supported Lott and Mustard’s findings.”
Heck yeah.
-but-
“Others found inconsistent results when using different modeling strategies (24–31) and suggested the presence of errors in the data used in this study (32).”
So, they found that shall issue laws were not associated with reductions in homicide rates.
In looking at the graph in Figure 2, (which I may be misunderstanding as it’s a graph type I am unfamiliar with. It’s like a box and whisker, but there is no box? I tried to look it up, but to no avail. If you know what it’s called, I’d love to see how it is actually supposed to work) only 3/25 showed a range that didn’t dip into the “reduction” in homicides and firearm homicides side of the chart. But, 10/25 (less than half) did indicate an increase in firearm homicide rates overall.
Further research showed:
“Using additional data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Rosengart et al. (38) and Hepburn et al. (39) showed no association between these laws and overall and firearm homicides. Studies comparing cities with a population of 100,000 or more (40) and others using samples of large cities in the United States (41, 42) found similar findings.”
One study about Southern Arizona showed an (amount unspecified in the article) increase in proportions of firearm injuries/deaths associated with shall issue laws.
“In recent years, studies by Strnad (44) using a Bayesian approach and by
Moody and Marvell(45, 46), Lott (47), and Gius (48) showed that shall issue laws were associated with reductions in homicide rates (extending data to 2000)” (Moody and Marvell struck-through by me because one article disagreed with their modeling and suggested not to use county level data due to inconsistencies)“In Colombia, Villaveces et al. (52) examined the association between laws banning the carrying of firearms during weekends after paydays, holidays, and election days in Cali and Bogota and the rate of homicides.”
So, they found a reduction of 13% and 14% in these cities, respectively, however with the exception of those whose candidates were not elected, weekends after paydays, holidays, and election days are all times in which people would be in a better mood. I’m unclear about the methods in this one with respect to “…comparing the rates of homicides on days with and without the restriction”. Does this mean comparing to weekends after paydays, holidays, and election days, or just like “those days were banned, lets look at the rest of the week?” If it’s the former, super cool that that worked for two Colombian cities. If it’s the latter, I don’t think that’s a good control.
Then there is the gem which is Table 2: A laundry list of things that are wrong with any of the given (unspecified as to which) studies’ methodologies.
There’s a way to discuss a topic without name calling, pretending you know someone you’ve never met, putting words into someones mouth, or trying to belittle the other person. If you want people to listen to you and read your links (which I just opened and will be reading, thanks) maybe try not being a dick.
Until you can do that. Sit down and shut up.
ETA: I’ll be replying with science once I’ve read your articles.
Next time you want to cite a scientific article. Make sure it actually agrees with your stance first.
The “Harvard page” is just an advertisement for a book and some publications written by mainly one guy.
As for your Oxford paper. Omg. Thank you for the laugh. I’ll review it for you in the following comments, since my review is too long for a single comment.
I’m tired of people pretending they’re for gun regulation while they’re pretending “it’s only a small part of the puzzle”.
Like honestly, you feel gobsmacked in how you can have such high gun violence rates with similar mental health issues as countries which do have proper gun control and for some reason don’t the issues that the US does.
It’s purely about gun regulation ffs. Oh no, am I being insulting to someone who doesn’t think gun control would really help. Someone who pretends mental health program would do more.
Fucking ridiculous man.
Can you imagine nukes being considered a conflict resolution?
Technically, they are.
deleted by creator
I agree there needs to be a culture change. But on a global scale, the US is basically one of the leading countries in mental healthcare. Which, kinda shows a lot of isn’t evidence based
I agree there needs to be a culture change. But on a global scale, the US is basically one of the leading countries in mental healthcare. Which, kinda shows a lot of isn’t evidence based
Dark as fuck… but sadly too real
The Beaverton put together a nice, fill in the blank for mass shootings.
https://www.thebeaverton.com/2015/10/mass-shooting-in-usa-kills/
Edit: Added the Beaverton article
__________, USA — Up to ___ people were killed and ____ more injured after a gunman opened fire at a ________.
There were conflicting reports about casualties, but _______ from _______County Sheriff Department said the number is at __.
“I heard a popping sound and screaming,” said _________, a _________ at the __________. “And that’s when we all got down. There was ______ everywhere.”
The shooter’s motive was reported to be ________________.
Citizens of _______ were ______ and ______ to hear that something like this could happen in their community.
President _______ and Governor _______ had their _______ and _______ with the victims and their families.
____________________________________________________ gun control ___________________.
The NRA released a statement stating it __________with the victims, but _________ Second Amendment rights and _______________.
____________________________________________________ gun control ___________________.
💀
This is the saddest meme I’ve seen in recent memory, if only because of its accuracy
The Onion’s joke lacks the emotional punch of a fill in the blank sheet for mass shootings.
A fill in the blank that was published 9 years ago. The joke has the emotional punch because of how common mass shooting have become and the pattern that follows the shootings.
As depressing as this is, it would make a GREAT mad lib.
Chief wiggum just standing there and snacking is the cherry on top
If I hadn’t seen him working that Springfield beat for 30 years, I’d swear he was just transferred from Uvalde
Statistically insignificant compared to xyz
So much more people die from cancer than school shootings! Why focus so much on taking away my guns? Fix the cancer instead!
/s
Omg, this! Plus, if the cancer threatens to take over, we gonna need them guns to fight the cancer. #FlawlessLogic
TIME kills more people than guns! I suppose you want to outlaw TIME next???
Edit: ???
Wouah this is some seriously hard hitting meme content.
Mine was reversed
If it was a mental issue, the ruzzians would have a psychiatrist glued to the top of their murder tanks. And no, we don’t want a steel tent around each kid to provide them safety. Just don’t sell guns to regular stupid people. Wanna own one? Get educated in it’s use first. Understand what it’s for and keep it safely locked away from kids. The way kids get guns is thru failures in all these safety nets. I frankly don’t trust other parents. If a gun was something that only affected you the owner personally, I wouldn’t give a hoot. If it sometimes affected others, well then you need a license and insurance. But I mean, if live next door or upstairs, you can have an accident and I end up dead. So I would think 🤔 hmm this needs heavy regulation. To fucking fly a drone you need a license! WTF!
You do know this line is about mass shootings in general and not just school shootings, and that
A vast majority of guns used in 19 recent mass shootings were bought legally and with a federal background check. At least nine gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html
And that article is from 2018 and the shootings have only become more frequent
Well, I’m sorry, please don’t shoot me?
This makes it seem like most of the shooters are mentally ill. This is not true. The large majority are not, and most of those who are, have general depression. When looking over the online communications, writings, and discussing the factors with the surviving shooters, one thing becomes clear. They are terrorists. They are ideologically driven, their intent is to create terror, in a reaction to the things they are ideologically against.
Here are just a couple of links on the subject:
https://www.columbiapsychiatry.org/news/mass-shootings-and-mental-illness
No one normal is shooting up innocent people. So yes they have mental issues.
One can define mass shooters as mentally ill. It’s not exactly wrong, but not useful in the slightest, since you can only make that kind of diagnosis retrospectively. So what? The victims are already dead. To the point, mental illness is useless as a prospective indicator of potential mass shooters, since the vast majority of people with mental problems do not become one.
To the point, mental illness is useless as a prospective indicator of potential mass shooters, since the vast majority of people with mental problems do not become one.
That is the issue, it’s not about blaming anyone or anything, it’s about getting people help before they snap. It’s about having that option to get the help they need, because right now, for us in the USA, it’s really not an option at all. It can take months for people who need help to find it, and even then, if they’re insurance won’t cover it and they can’t afford it, their fucked.
As I’ve grown older and have had friends and family face various traumatic and life altering events I think I have come to realize that normal isn’t necessarily a thing and even if I concede that I understand what is meant by normal, all of us are a lot closer to not being normal than we would like to admit and crossing that line is often outside of an individuals control, no matter how much easier it is to dismiss and vilify.
Agreed. For some there’s a drive to maintain perceived “normalcy” based on what is seen in the media. This has existed long before social media. The 2.5 kids, a golden retriever and a white pocket fence was the American “normal.”
Trying to exist within social norms has existed for a long time. I think now we can see, through our digital lenses into the world, that social norms are different elsewhere, and the idea of “normal” continues to expand. And that’s a good thing, we are now willing to realize that everyone is human with their own whims, goals, interests, and wanting to exist how they feel comfortable.
It seems the largest issues come from trying to take those traditional norms which no longer make sense, and force them onto people that have seen that it’s ok to be different.
Today’s “normal” should just be treat your fellow human with dignity and respect, the golden rule is still golden. But I think the echo chambers of social media makes people join tribes of “their” normal and anyone who doesn’t fit that should be ostracized.
Most of us are just trying to get by in a world with increased corporate or otherwise authoritative control. We should fight against that, but see another human as human, regardless of if they are just like us.
What’s important is their behavior towards their fellow human. If they are hateful, violent, oppressive, predatory, etc, they don’t follow this new normal and they should be ostracized.
No, they are killing people they believe are an enemy. They do not believe these people are innocent. They are doing this for a cause, one they believe in deeply. If you claim that killing, and dying, for something you believe in, means you are mentally ill, then all soldiers are as well. People want for these people to have some sort of pathology to explain their behavior, because they don’t want to believe that humans, without a mental pathology, can do heinous things. Especially when they do not agree with what the terrorist believes. However, they are people who believe in their cause, and believe that they are at an impasse with progressing their beliefs about society via diplomatic, and the system provided framework, to affect that change. So they turn to violence.
What cause are these kids fighting for again?
It depends on the indiscriminate type mass shooter. Most of them have some political/ideological axiom they are deeply in. It differs from person to person though. However there are some themes that thread through most of these. Misogyny, hard right social, and political, standards, racism, and most have recently had a major loss that is traditionally seen as a measure of their masculinity.
That makes up most of these people. When it is specifically kids shooting up their school, it is often that they view the people in the school as their enemy, for a variety reasons. These are generally mentally ill. However, the comment thread I replied to was discussing the broader range of indiscriminate type mass murderers.
We know we’ve been through this a lot because the meme had also went through a lot of reposts.
Fucksake. 🥹
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Dude there was literally another school shooting today. Pipe down.
Edit: nevermind its more than likely a bot
