Please go and start a thread about that then.
Right. So then countries with really strict gun control should have pretty much the same rate of mass killings (and suicides, and armed robberies, and everything else that’s done here with a gun) as the US, right?
Since the gun is irrelevant, and regulating them won’t make any difference.
I’m sure the stats will bear that out. :rolleyes:
This would be totally useless, except for stopping the Las vegas shooter, and he was a one off.
This is a great example of a law that would increase paperwork, harass gun owners, and do nothing whatsoever to prevent crimes.
That kinda makes the point. He didn’t want to kill the maximum number of people; he specifically wanted to shoot people.
I guess you didn’t read my link about a guy who threatened to shoot up his workplace. When the police came, they found 20,000 rounds. No he didn’t do it, but if he hadn’t announced it, or his co-workers didn’t believe him, he could have become a shooter.
As for paperwork, Safeway does a lot more sophisticated analysis of my grocery purchases than I’m advocating here.
I seem to be the only one who has made a proposal, and the gun lovers clearly think the slightest bit of inconvenience to anything in the system is unacceptable.
Without any counter proposals, of course.
A bomb-laden truck isn’t nearly as phallic as a good rifle.
It’s not the bullet that kills you, it’s the hole. Outlaw holes.
You have the right to shoot or be shot. Nothing else matters.
Beware blade-throwers than can fling clips of fourteen knives.
My background can be clean if my foreground is full of targets.
Sure. And over how long a period and from what sources did he buy the ammo?
Unadulterated bullshit. Guns are the most convenient and efficient tool, period. The Vegas shooter doubtlessly lacked the guts it would take to deliberately crash an airplane. I think mass shooters usually kill themselves because the horror of what they have done comes to make dying easier than living.
I’m not dismissing anything. I’m just saying that guns are part of the picture. Not the whole picture, but part of it. Most Americans who want to kill someone choose a gun. This isn’t some random coincidence - it’s because they think a gun is the easiest way to do it. No need to worry about concrete pillars and barriers. No need to get up close and personal. They can bring it inside a building instead of having to stay on the street. And guns and gunshots bring a unique terror in the US because if our history and culture.
And some guns are even more deadly than others. Some features are particularly useful for mass shootings. Short barrel carbines, rifle caliber ammunition, semi auto action, and large magazine size, for example, for shootings in interior spaces, like offices or schools. Bump stocks increase rate of fire if one is shooting into a crowd.
I’m saying that all of these facts can and should be taken into account when trying to fight against mass shootings. It wouldn’t solve them - the ultimate problem is our culture and society that worships violence - but it might reduce the body counts for some.
It doesn’t even register on the list of things I worry about enough to warrant a policy solution. So yes.
They put the Boston Marathon bomber on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, like he was a rock star or teen idol, with soft light and tousled hair. That’s just wrong. I think we can all agree it’s wrong, and not doing that is not the same as sticking our heads in the sand.
I don’t object to a limit on ammunition purchase, requiring a license to own a firearm, magazine size or even an assault ban.
I believe that firearm advocates would see any of these as a foot in the door, a legal precedent for other laws. “We banned large ammunition purchases, we should also ban semi automatic weapons.” That would include the Colt .45 semiautomatic pistol, which is 109 years old.
I still don’t get the magic step that goes, stop talking about bad things, then bad things will no longer happen. Is there fairy dust involved? Do we all have to close our eyes and wish real hard too?
Not fairy dust, psychology. Social contagion is the idea that people are inspired by other people’s action.
It is well known that suicides can trigger social contagion. For example, suicides went up 12% the month of Marilyn Monroe’s suicide. For this reason many countries have journalistic codes regarding suicide reporting and the CDC has guidelinesabout best practices in covering suicides.
If you look at the guidelines for suicide coverage, most coverage of mass shootings violate the guidelines. They are sensationalized and detail how they were accomplished, and give publicity to the shooter’s goals. This spreads the social contagion.
It’s sticking our fingers in our ears and trying to manifest reality to our will. If we forbid the media from covering bad things, then we can delude ourselves into thinking bad things don’t happen. That is what this suggestion boils down to.
Yes I understand psychology is a thing. But I also understand that reality is a thing and pretending something doesn’t exist is not a solution.
I don’t feel it would fix everything, but I also don’t see how anyone could argue that refusing to glorify mass murderers (as they currently are) wouldn’t at least cut down on some of them. The ones who are angry and just want to cause pain and suffering - no, a lack of attention would not stop them. Others, though? The ones who want to make a name for themselves and live on in infamy? I could absolutely see them deciding not to go through with it.
I think about how uncommon school shootings and attempted school shootings (I realize there are mass shootings that aren’t in schools - just looking at one slice of the pie, here) used to be. Not non-existent, but certainly far less common than today. What’s changed? I don’t think Americans are inherently more violent than we were 30, 40, 50 years ago. I don’t think guns are really easier to get - if anything, I think they’re harder to get legally (maybe easier to get illegally though? Can’t say I know for sure). What’s changed immensely is the media. It’s grown and evolved and now the whole world can know about a shooting in minutes. Unfortunately, I don’t see a way to change that, since people tend to place so much value on getting news quickly. And it isn’t a bad thing either, until it comes to fame-seekers with a serious bone to pick. I’d say don’t publish the names or creeds/manifestos of mass killers, but can not knowing that information be considered harmful?
I’d like to see mental health being far less of a stigma and more accessible. I can think of two infamous cases off the top of my head of killers who initially sought help, didn’t really receive it, and go on to kill. Obviously we have no way of knowing if they would have killed anyway, but it’s very possible that psychological help could have prevented needless deaths.
Neither a lack of media coverage nor an increase in mental health awareness will 100% prevent mass killings. As far as I’m concerned, nothing ever will.
I’m not sure if the media even matters any more, if the idea is preventing the spread if information. With the internet and camera-phones, the details of mass shootings will become public knowledge, period. There’s nothing we can do about that. It won’t even take very long. Pretending that changing the media strategy will prevent this info from spreading is a fool’s errand.
What country in the world had a problem with mass shootings and then solved it with gun restrictions?
Australia.
United Kingdom.
They decided mass shootings were a problem, in response to those shootings they restricted guns, and the mass shooting problem basically went away.
The fact that they needed only one horrible mass shooting to decide they’d had enough, and we are apparently fine with mass shootings every few months, is just a statement on how much carnage we are willing to accept before we admit we have a problem.