And yet you want your pet project tentatively supported by some scientists and others to go nationwide?
And yet when make hysterical assertions like the above you wonder why everyone doesn’t just jump on board with you? :smack:
Because we are going to know the names no matter what, and you have not proposed any practical means of stopping this. So let’s concentrate on things that might actually help. And, as I said, someone reading about the murder who is likely to be a copycat will do so whether or not anyone will learn their names. If they survive their name will come out since their indictment is a public record. If not their post-mortem fame won’t matter much to them.
California has red flag laws, and last week my paper detailed four or five local instances where they were used to grab the guns of people making threats - which likely saved lives. Those are the kinds of laws we should concentrate on.
I have no idea if you’re being intentionally disingenuous. Let’s assume you’re not and I’ll try to address your question. I trust you won’t feel the need to ask it again or make the same weak assertion without something new and substantive to add.
The reason the previous tepid attempt at a ban didn’t work is because it did nothing to reduce the number of guns in the population. Additionally, it did nothing to prevent the out of state gun purchases. I don’t know what the words “gun control” mean to you. To me it means precious little in terms of what’s been attempted thus far. So if it made any difference at all, it wasn’t significant. Worse than that, it served only to provide fodder for more criticism from your side. Meaningful gun control would require a damn sight more than what’s been “tried” to date.
As to your scientific cites, many people here agreed to withhold the names of mass murderers in the media. We’re skeptical that it will bring about a “ten fold” reduction in mass shootings, per your assertion, but we’re on board with pretty much anything that might reduce gun violence in general. It would behoove you to acknowledge that much at least.
I predict red flag laws will hinder people from getting mental help and lead to a worse state of affairs in the end. People who may need help will be too afraid they’ll have to give up their guns if they admit to any sort of symptoms.
The primary sea changes are (1) there’s a lot more competition for media coverage as now people don’t have to even watch TV and have many more sources (2) There is *direct *feedback now as to which stories viewers actually read and watch.
As it turns out, a mass shooting is just awesome for the media outlooks. A large number of people were shot DEAD? In a place they thought they were SAFE?! Read more to find out HOW IT HAPPENED. It’s literal clickbait. So on a typical day, where several thousand U.S. citizens die from the horrible wasting genetic disease we call aging, a little over a hundred are also killed by gunfire.
And occasionally, on some days, some lone nut kills a dozen or two extra people on top of the thousands of people who died that day.
In the larger picture it’s not even newsworthy.
There is a little bit of hope. The more mass shootings that happen, the more the public will bore of the coverage. A high school got shot up again? It’s a Tuesday, yawn, did the sports team in my city advance to the playoffs?
I think this will cause the rate of mass shootings to stabilize - enough media coverage they keep happening, but due to saturation/fatigue/disinterest many mass shootings will barely get any coverage and thus potential shooters will be less interested in committing them. (the shooting rate wouldn’t go down, probably, but it would stop increasing)
Brought to you by the Department of, ‘So Sociopathalogical Even the NRA Wouldn’t Say It Out Loud.’
? I’m just saying that the rate that people are being violently murdered, at a rate that is insignificant relative to all the other people being killed by medical errors and disease and also other forms of violent murder and car wrecks, will probably not go too much higher.
I mean, sure, it would be great if we could have security everywhere so mass shootings would promptly be stopped quickly. But that costs money and budgets for police are finite. (got to give billionaires tax cuts)
And it would be great if we could make the guns that are optimal for mass shootings harder to obtain. But that isn’t going to happen.
And it would be great if we could pay for mental health care on a large scale to be available to regular people. But that costs money and budgets for mental health care are finite. (got to give billionaires tax cuts)
So instead, well, at least it probably won’t get much worse.
Oddly enough, the problem started after several such shootings in the USA. Evidently a “me too” problem. The difference is that such shootings are far less common because gins are not so readily available. In Germany, the murderous kiddies took their guns from their parents’ collection, resulting in calls for a renewed look at who owned guns and how they kept them. And those counrires do not permit ownership of military weapons. Which is not to say that they cannot be had, but it is not easy to get them.
Adding Norway to the statistics is misleading. That was one incident by some murderous right-wing loner, who was totally unsuspected. He was able to kill so many people because his killing spree was on a small island that was being used for a convention.
Having restrictive gun laws does reduce the likelihood of such cases - I said gun laws, not confiscation. Par6 of the problem in recent years in Europe has been the relatively easy availability of Soviet small arms after the breakup of the Soviet union. Before 1990 it was very hard to get illegal assault rifles in western Europe. It will take a while before the number is reduced as they are found.
For the fourth time- not “MY” per project, the project of many noted scientists.
It has more science behind it than gun control.
Dont do what *I *say, do what the *scientists *say.
Ask the scientists. Apparently you as a layman, somehow found the loophole that a bunch of respected scientists and their reviewers have missed. :eek:Maybe a Nobel prize is on your way.:dubious: Or maybe- you are wrong and the scientists are right.:rolleyes:
I support red flag laws as long as they have* due process. * They might be a valuable tool, and will work well in conjunction with not broadcasting the shooters names.
Here’s a interesting article:
Another protection order was issued when a high school assistant principal alerted authorities about a 15-year-old student who spoke favorably of the Parkland, Fla., shooter and said “school shooters are gods.” which also strongly supports the scientist’s point about the media.
All of them, most of them, some of them…or just the ones you think agree with you? You keep glossing over many problems that have been pointed out to you, either heavily implying that scientists as a whole agree with you and/or claiming that those who think differently than you somehow don’t care if people are killed.
Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, possibly the most anti-gun organization in America, ranks seven states with a “A” ratings for gun control. I can only assume that the leading gun control org , if they rate a state as a A, then that state has excellent gun control.
And you are correct- if it made any difference at all, it wasn’t significant. However, in several jurisdictions they crossed the line into UnConstitutional measures. So, nothing much stronger that is now in effect in those 7 states would be legal. Are you proposing illegal gun control? Or perhaps repealing the 2nd Ad to get what you think would work? Pretty much- *that aint gonna happen.
*
A few have yes, but most of the others here think that they, as laymen, have brilliantly, and without research or specialized training, found loopholes that the degreed expert scientists have somehow missed. :dubious:
Others, such as Czarcasm, have done nothing but ridicule the science.
Most arent reading and think that this is “MY” idea or that it will violate the 1st ad.
Most of those I list above wont listen to any solution that isnt more gun bans. Their mind is made up, facts wont change it. Guns are evil, they must be banned- all of them.
Bad ones will, good ones might help. I am hopeful. Due process is necessary.
Even assuming they are right that the names of the killers (and not the fact of the killings) is the most significant thing, that does not explain how we keep the names secret in today’s world. Want to tell us something feasible, at last?
Red flag laws have nothing to do with shooters’ names. And what do you mean by due process? A review after the guns are taken is one thing, but not taking the guns until a court date is scheduled is pretty useless.
That study is probably the same one that inspired the article in the Merc. NRA types don’t consider the California law as providing due process - do you?
Red flag laws kick in when other people see problems. They don’t happen from self-reporting. I’d suspect that they might help, if getting treatment were made a condition for getting the guns back. If they refuse the treatment, no guns, which sounds good to me.
They ones I cited. Where are your cites that say my cites are wrong?
Yes, the “many problems”, pointed out by laymen. Many of the studies give the University where the author is a professor, others are published in a journal, which of course accepts corrections, etc from qualified experts. Why dont *you *write them and point out their errors?:rolleyes: Ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease…
“claiming that those who think differently than you somehow don’t care if people are killed.” You- and many other gun grabbers here- have said that exact same thing about people who support the Constitution. That since we support the Constitution we dont care if kids are killed in the schools, etc. :rolleyes: Maybe a reading of Matthew 7:5 might help you see more clearly.
Perhaps you, as a layman, can write the experts who wrote those journals and articles and point out that obvious error to them? I didn’t write them. I am only a expert in things like Money-laundering, etc.
Let’s see what the ACLU and courts say. I have some doubts but of course the NRA is biased.