Yet another shooting

[glassgowkiss]

Looks like it's a norm these days. Why worry about ISIS, when we have NRA?

[ivan]

we should bury these kinds of victims in Arlington - they die for freedom too, don't they? only they didn't get a choice...

[glassgowkiss]

It's obvious right wing lunacy is supportive of the status quo. Silence= approval.

[ivan]

it wouldn't be the status quo if a significant chunk of the country wasn't okay w/ it, no? slavery wouldn't have lasted so long if so many people weren't fine w/ it. it's depressing, but the reality is 'mericans, as their actions show, are by'n'large okay w/ this sort of thing

 

seriously, can you think of any hypothetical situation awful enough to turn the public around on this issue that HASN'T already happened (over n' over n' over again)?

[Jim]

Grim. Just plain grim. Leave some plastic flowers, say a prayer, change the channel. Move on.

[Rad]

Don't give the media coverage your eyeball hours or clicks

Don't click on anything that gives extra attention to the shooter.

Don't fan the flames.

[glassgowkiss]

Don't give the media coverage your eyeball hours or clicks

Don't click on anything that gives extra attention to the shooter.

Don't fan the flames.

What a bullshit approach. The fact is that this should be treated as public health issue. Hence the prerequisite to any logical and meaningful discussion should be data gathering. And NRA=death lobby is preventing CDC from doing it's job. People freak out about less then 100 cases of measles, yet over 30 000 people a year getting killed by firearms is OK. for every shooting that makes it into the media, there are dozens with zero media coverage. Very frequently they involve women and children. But let's not talk about it, just let's keep pretending this is normal. And of course venom cool-aid drinking right wing lunacy will try to convince us, they are pro life, but the only answer to mass shootings are more guns.

[Rad]

Don't give the media coverage your eyeball hours or clicks

Don't click on anything that gives extra attention to the shooter.

Don't fan the flames.

What a bullshit approach....

 

Calling bullshit on your bullshit. The data are VERY clear. People in the US have easy access to guns and they shoot people. You don't hear of mass stranglings or mass knifings. Control guns and the problem goes away. Any idiot can see that. Moreover, the media gives dead killers huge amounts of attention so future would-be gunmen see fame and glory through infamy as their end. And the media makes money, the gun companies make money. Yes, changing gun laws is the obvious solution. If you've figured out a way to do that I'd love to hear it.

 

One very simple way to act is to not let the media monetize these tragedies. Avert your electronic gaze. If killers get no attention the prospect of internet fame will be removed as a lure to would be killers.

 

Maybe you have better ideas.

[glassgowkiss]

Don't give the media coverage your eyeball hours or clicks

Don't click on anything that gives extra attention to the shooter.

Don't fan the flames.

What a bullshit approach....

 

Calling bullshit on your bullshit. The data are VERY clear. People in the US have easy access to guns and they shoot people. You don't hear of mass stranglings or mass knifings.

 

Not stranglings, but in China mass stabbings have occurred.

 

Control guns and the problem goes away. Any idiot can see that. Moreover, the media gives dead killers huge amounts of attention so future would-be gunmen see fame and glory through infamy as their end. And the media makes money, the gun companies make money. Yes, changing gun laws is the obvious solution. If you've figured out a way to do that I'd love to hear it.

 

One very simple way to act is to not let the media monetize these tragedies. Avert your electronic gaze. If killers get no attention the prospect of internet fame will be removed as a lure to would be killers.

 

Maybe you have better ideas.

 

Look, countries like Canada are not that far off as far as culture, they have almost as many guns per capita as US. In Switzerland every adult male between 18 and 35 has military grade rifle at home, but somehow you do not hear about mass shootings there on weekly basis.

That fact is we do not know what triggers these events, and until we actually do some science based research we do not have even an idea where and how to start. Licensing to operate a firearm- the very same way as we license drivers could be a way to curb some of it.

And since you are claiming such data exist, would you post some links to studies conducted by CDC in this subject matter?

I am not for status quo, but simplifying such complex issue is sure way for failure.

[Rad]

I am a fan of data-driven, science based approaches. Look forward to seeing the work you produce.

[Rad]

One data point.

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/9437187/obama-guns-terrorism-deaths

It does not delve into causes.

 

Let's suppose you could solve gun deaths by either revamping gun laws or making a very large investment in mental health care. Which would take effect faster? Which would cost less? Which would be easier to implement?

 

Banning confederate flags? Really? Who thinks that's going to do anything?

 

The conservatives don't have a logical leg to stand on here, but it doesn't seem to matter. And that is deeply disturbing to me.

[ivan]

keeping the cdc from gathering gun-death data is clearly insane, even if the ultimate solution wasn't primarily changing gun laws - at least conservatives are being consistent in shitting on science?

 

the gun issue is obviously much bigger than any single gun attack, but just to deal w/ this recent instance, i don't much see how changing gun laws helps this situation - admittedly goofy guy gets a couple handguns legally (he didn't seem that batshit?)n' then goes n' shoots the shit out of his school for the 10 minutes or so you can get away w/ such madness before the big bad world comes down on your head n' brings you the big oblivion you wanted anyway? there might be some other fixes that could have forestalled this, but fiddling w/ the 2nd amendment doesn't seem promising short of some really, really major revisions (again, just w/ this one case)

 

perhaps just pouring paxil in the water? big-pharma might be the only way the nra could get knocked off?

[glassgowkiss]

Let's suppose you could solve gun deaths by or making a very large investment in mental health care.

more then 99% of mentally ill people are non violent. As the matter of fact tying mental illness to violence is a repugnant argument of right wing lunacy and gun death industry and shifting a blame onto the victim.

One common these with these mass killings is stock piling of ammunition and guns. In recent incident 13 guns were purchased in a short span of time. Why isn't there a system tracking these purchases, that should have been a red flag. Even if you are a super redneck hunter, 13 firearms purchased in a span of less then 2 years should raise some red flags.

But the argument that mentally ill people are more likely to commit acts of violence is baseless assumption without any evidence backing it up. It's another red herring argument of NRA, which is only trying to shift the blame.

[LUCKY]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/02/forget-oregon-s-gunman-remember-the-hero-who-charged-straight-at-him.html

Say not the gunman's name out of respect for the dead and to not give the shooter what he wanted (recognition)

The Umpqua shooter

 

Edited October 3, 2015 by LUCKY

[ivan]

nice idea, but think whoever the fuck it was (i've heard his name several times and don't remember it - you have to plug a president for that kind of pull) probably didn't want much more than to kill a bunch of folks and then himself, and he already got that

 

history's nothing more than a long litany of psychotic fuckers to them that's looking for that sort of inspiration

[CWC01]

Don't give the media coverage your eyeball hours or clicks

Don't click on anything that gives extra attention to the shooter.

Don't fan the flames.

What a bullshit approach....

 

Calling bullshit on your bullshit. The data are VERY clear. People in the US have easy access to guns and they shoot people. You don't hear of mass stranglings or mass knifings. Control guns and the problem goes away. Any idiot can see that. Moreover, the media gives dead killers huge amounts of attention so future would-be gunmen see fame and glory through infamy as their end. And the media makes money, the gun companies make money. Yes, changing gun laws is the obvious solution. If you've figured out a way to do that I'd love to hear it.

 

One very simple way to act is to not let the media monetize these tragedies. Avert your electronic gaze. If killers get no attention the prospect of internet fame will be removed as a lure to would be killers.

 

Maybe you have better ideas.

 

The difference between today and 30 years ago is the media. Firearms technology hasn't changed much and gun laws are actually more strict. Media sells news by making news, they're growing up their own stories one nut job at a time with the constant news circus. Ironically the law abiding citizens are villains and the mass shooters are infamous.

 

 

[ivan]

which of these 3 problems is hardest to solve: gun violence, healthcare, immigration?

 

i'm thinking the later 2 are peanuts compared to the first.

[CWC01]

which of these 3 problems is hardest to solve: gun violence, healthcare, immigration?

 

i'm thinking the later 2 are peanuts compared to the first.

 

Which does the media focus on the most?

[ivan]

they all get their day of course, but, wether we like or not, humans look to the news in part for entertainment, and humans, since at least the time of the romans, are fascinated w/ ritualistic mass killings

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Ah, the media myth. Nope. The frequency and severity of mass shootings in America has accelerated hugely in recent years. The problem is real, and the successful policies of other nations who've solved this problem through strict gun regulation offers real solutions American gun owners don't want simply because, well, and it really comes down to just this: they really like their guns and they're willing to keep their access to them unfettered at the expense of somebody else's kids.

 

 

[CWC01]

If we banned guns shootings would stop.

 

http://therightscoop.com/breaking-possible-terror-attack-in-australia-one-policeman-and-one-gunman-dead/

[ivan]

Ah, the media myth. Nope. The frequency and severity of mass shootings in America has accelerated hugely in recent years. The problem is real, and the successful policies of other nations who've solved this problem through strict gun regulation offers real solutions American gun owners don't want simply because, well, and it really comes down to just this: they really like their guns and they're willing to keep their access to them unfettered at the expense of somebody else's kids.

 

true or not this assertion, the most logical way to understand the problem is...to fawking study the problem. refusing the cdc the power to study gun violence is clearly political and clearly intended to prevent future gun regulation, even if warranted

 

sure, there were mass killings in the past, but the media of the past wasn't that different from today, at least in terms of its politics and its interests - the perception that these kinds of attacks have become more common seems very likely true

[glassgowkiss]

And KKK, FW and other right wing nuts are just happy about the whole situation. A mean silence is an approval.

[CWC01]

Ah, the media myth. Nope. The frequency and severity of mass shootings in America has accelerated hugely in recent years. The problem is real, and the successful policies of other nations who've solved this problem through strict gun regulation offers real solutions American gun owners don't want simply because, well, and it really comes down to just this: they really like their guns and they're willing to keep their access to them unfettered at the expense of somebody else's kids.

 

true or not this assertion, the most logical way to understand the problem is...to fawking study the problem. refusing the cdc the power to study gun violence is clearly political and clearly intended to prevent future gun regulation, even if warranted

 

sure, there were mass killings in the past, but the media of the past wasn't that different from today, at least in terms of its politics and its interests - the perception that these kinds of attacks have become more common seems very likely true

 

The problem has been studied.

 

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

 

 

[snoboy]

According to a couple sources I just checked via a quick Google, Americans actual own ~3 times more guns per capita than Canadians. 31/100 vs 89/100. Switzerland is ~25-46/100 - military rifles kept at home included. Not sure why the range in that figure.

 

In my mind it would be interesting to know the numbers when you start counting handguns. I suspect the difference would be much more dramatic.

 

In Switzerland the guns are kept at home, but only 2000 specialist militia members are allowed to keep military issued ammunition at home. The rest have to go get their bullets from an armoury when the time comes... I don't know what Switzerland's ammo control laws are.

 

Sources:

http://globalnews.ca/news/1354803/fact-checking-michael-moore-does-canada-have-more-guns-per-capita-than-the-us/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Storage_of_military-issued_ammunition