Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On March 01 2018 13:48 NewSunshine wrote: Okay broseph, you can go away now. Take the win, or whatever it is you wanted out of this, because I'm not doing this. I've no reason to brag about anything, especially when it isn't germane to the conversation, and I damn sure don't have kind words for Walmart in general, but I'm surely not in the mood to argue with someone so eager to put words in my mouth. It's not worth it.
It's not about winning, I just want effective gun reform that means less people die from them. Some ideas are better than others, it's nothing personal broseph.
"I want effective reform" is a very easy way of dismissing each and every individual solution that needs to be enacted over time to form a proper complex way of dealing with this issue.
In the end school shootings in the US are a complex problem which will require a complex solution. However, "complex solutions" usually aren't easily enacted because you need to a) gather data (something gun lobbies in the US actively prevent) and b) enact a lot of small solutions that work together.
Norway, Canada, France, Austria, Germany, Finland. Know what these countries have in common? 1/3rd of guns per capita compared to the US. None of them have even remotely close to 1/3rd of school shootings per capita, all of them have way way less. Compared to Germany for example in the 21st century the US had ~40 times as many, which leaves us with a factor of ~10x as many once we adjust for population.
Reducing gun supply in the US would not make school shootings go away, neither would enacting age limits, neither would banning specific guns, neither would forced registering of guns, neither would a higher focus on mental health, neither would beefing up law enforcement so it actually enforces existing legislation and neither would getting rid of a culture that glorifies guns and makes both perpetrators and victims media stars.
Each and every single one of those can be (correctly) argued away by saying: "That's not going to change anything, I want an effective reform!" - Yet all of the above are for example something we have over here and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if similar things are true for other countries on the above list.
I'm not arguing that's not possible, but that's not what I'm advocating. I'm sorry if that's how you interpreted it.
On March 01 2018 13:48 NewSunshine wrote: Okay broseph, you can go away now. Take the win, or whatever it is you wanted out of this, because I'm not doing this. I've no reason to brag about anything, especially when it isn't germane to the conversation, and I damn sure don't have kind words for Walmart in general, but I'm surely not in the mood to argue with someone so eager to put words in my mouth. It's not worth it.
I presumed it wasn't, but I didn't really understand the idea that corporations like walmart didn't have time to lobby congress?
It's not about winning, I just want effective gun reform that means less people die from them. Some ideas are better than others, it's nothing personal broseph.
Well so do I. But how do you think we get from where we are now to some place where that's the case? It's not by shouting at people from the rooftops that the incremental progress they're making isn't enough, therefore they can all burn in hell. You can't ignore specifics when you're talking about societal issues. That's the #1 most important shit. And so you telling Walmart they can fuck off, when they're helping us take a frankly important step, is not the least bit helpful, especially when you have nothing specific to provide as an alternative.
On March 01 2018 13:48 NewSunshine wrote: Okay broseph, you can go away now. Take the win, or whatever it is you wanted out of this, because I'm not doing this. I've no reason to brag about anything, especially when it isn't germane to the conversation, and I damn sure don't have kind words for Walmart in general, but I'm surely not in the mood to argue with someone so eager to put words in my mouth. It's not worth it.
I presumed it wasn't, but I didn't really understand the idea that corporations like walmart didn't have time to lobby congress?
It's not about winning, I just want effective gun reform that means less people die from them. Some ideas are better than others, it's nothing personal broseph.
Well so do I. But how do you think we get from where we are now to some place where that's the case? It's not by shouting at people from the rooftops that the incremental progress they're making isn't enough, therefore they can all burn in hell. You can't ignore specifics when you're talking about societal issues. That's the #1 most important shit. And so you telling Walmart they can fuck off, when they're helping us take a frankly important step, is not the least bit helpful, especially when you have nothing specific to provide as an alternative.
It's by trying to get people to realize they shouldn't be baited into a crappy incremental step when there's a much bigger and better one that someone like Danglars already said they supported.
You guys have to take a step back and know when to take yes for an answer.
On March 01 2018 13:48 NewSunshine wrote: Okay broseph, you can go away now. Take the win, or whatever it is you wanted out of this, because I'm not doing this. I've no reason to brag about anything, especially when it isn't germane to the conversation, and I damn sure don't have kind words for Walmart in general, but I'm surely not in the mood to argue with someone so eager to put words in my mouth. It's not worth it.
It's not about winning, I just want effective gun reform that means less people die from them. Some ideas are better than others, it's nothing personal broseph.
"I want effective reform" is a very easy way of dismissing each and every individual solution that needs to be enacted over time to form a proper complex way of dealing with this issue.
In the end school shootings in the US are a complex problem which will require a complex solution. However, "complex solutions" usually aren't easily enacted because you need to a) gather data (something gun lobbies in the US actively prevent) and b) enact a lot of small solutions that work together.
Norway, Canada, France, Austria, Germany, Finland. Know what these countries have in common? 1/3rd of guns per capita compared to the US. None of them have even remotely close to 1/3rd of school shootings per capita, all of them have way way less. Compared to Germany for example in the 21st century the US had ~40 times as many, which leaves us with a factor of ~10x as many once we adjust for population.
Reducing gun supply in the US would not make school shootings go away, neither would enacting age limits, neither would banning specific guns, neither would forced registering of guns, neither would a higher focus on mental health, neither would beefing up law enforcement so it actually enforces existing legislation and neither would getting rid of a culture that glorifies guns and makes both perpetrators and victims media stars.
Each and every single one of those can be (correctly) argued away by saying: "That's not going to change anything, I want an effective reform!" - Yet all of the above are for example something we have over here and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if similar things are true for other countries on the above list.
I'm not arguing that's not possible, but that's not what I'm advocating. I'm sorry if that's how you interpreted it.
Alright, what concrete measures would you consider "effective reform"? And no, arming teachers is likely not on the list for any other country in the world.
On March 01 2018 13:48 NewSunshine wrote: Okay broseph, you can go away now. Take the win, or whatever it is you wanted out of this, because I'm not doing this. I've no reason to brag about anything, especially when it isn't germane to the conversation, and I damn sure don't have kind words for Walmart in general, but I'm surely not in the mood to argue with someone so eager to put words in my mouth. It's not worth it.
It's not about winning, I just want effective gun reform that means less people die from them. Some ideas are better than others, it's nothing personal broseph.
"I want effective reform" is a very easy way of dismissing each and every individual solution that needs to be enacted over time to form a proper complex way of dealing with this issue.
In the end school shootings in the US are a complex problem which will require a complex solution. However, "complex solutions" usually aren't easily enacted because you need to a) gather data (something gun lobbies in the US actively prevent) and b) enact a lot of small solutions that work together.
Norway, Canada, France, Austria, Germany, Finland. Know what these countries have in common? 1/3rd of guns per capita compared to the US. None of them have even remotely close to 1/3rd of school shootings per capita, all of them have way way less. Compared to Germany for example in the 21st century the US had ~40 times as many, which leaves us with a factor of ~10x as many once we adjust for population.
Reducing gun supply in the US would not make school shootings go away, neither would enacting age limits, neither would banning specific guns, neither would forced registering of guns, neither would a higher focus on mental health, neither would beefing up law enforcement so it actually enforces existing legislation and neither would getting rid of a culture that glorifies guns and makes both perpetrators and victims media stars.
Each and every single one of those can be (correctly) argued away by saying: "That's not going to change anything, I want an effective reform!" - Yet all of the above are for example something we have over here and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if similar things are true for other countries on the above list.
I'm not arguing that's not possible, but that's not what I'm advocating. I'm sorry if that's how you interpreted it.
Alright, what concrete measures would you consider "effective reform"? And no, arming teachers is likely not on the list for any other country in the world.
lol I figured you hadn't followed my posting on the topic.
Responsible gun ownership and increased accountability for gun owners. So stuff like requiring trigger locks on guns not in use, in addition to reasonable expectations to secure a gun from children/those who shouldn't have access and/or theft.
Federally limiting unlicensed firearm transfers to non-monetary transactions, that is to say parents could gift guns to heirs but you can't sell guns in parking lots without background checks.
Accident prevention should be a large component, since accidental gun deaths/wounds are remarkably common.
Mental health is another obvious one, not because of mass shooters (for reasons mentioned in thread) but because suicide is such a large portion of gun deaths, and is pretty irrefutably connected to mental health.
Stuff in that vein. Not a handful of corporations doing some superficial stuff that will make people feel better until the next tragedy.
On March 01 2018 13:48 NewSunshine wrote: Okay broseph, you can go away now. Take the win, or whatever it is you wanted out of this, because I'm not doing this. I've no reason to brag about anything, especially when it isn't germane to the conversation, and I damn sure don't have kind words for Walmart in general, but I'm surely not in the mood to argue with someone so eager to put words in my mouth. It's not worth it.
It's not about winning, I just want effective gun reform that means less people die from them. Some ideas are better than others, it's nothing personal broseph.
"I want effective reform" is a very easy way of dismissing each and every individual solution that needs to be enacted over time to form a proper complex way of dealing with this issue.
In the end school shootings in the US are a complex problem which will require a complex solution. However, "complex solutions" usually aren't easily enacted because you need to a) gather data (something gun lobbies in the US actively prevent) and b) enact a lot of small solutions that work together.
Norway, Canada, France, Austria, Germany, Finland. Know what these countries have in common? 1/3rd of guns per capita compared to the US. None of them have even remotely close to 1/3rd of school shootings per capita, all of them have way way less. Compared to Germany for example in the 21st century the US had ~40 times as many, which leaves us with a factor of ~10x as many once we adjust for population.
Reducing gun supply in the US would not make school shootings go away, neither would enacting age limits, neither would banning specific guns, neither would forced registering of guns, neither would a higher focus on mental health, neither would beefing up law enforcement so it actually enforces existing legislation and neither would getting rid of a culture that glorifies guns and makes both perpetrators and victims media stars.
Each and every single one of those can be (correctly) argued away by saying: "That's not going to change anything, I want an effective reform!" - Yet all of the above are for example something we have over here and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if similar things are true for other countries on the above list.
I'm not arguing that's not possible, but that's not what I'm advocating. I'm sorry if that's how you interpreted it.
Alright, what concrete measures would you consider "effective reform"? And no, arming teachers is likely not on the list for any other country in the world.
Responsible gun ownership and increased accountability for gun owners. So stuff like requiring trigger locks on guns not in use, in addition to reasonable expectations to secure a gun from children/those who shouldn't have access and/or theft.
Sounds good, also ties into accident prevention.
Federally limiting unlicensed firearm transfers to non-monetary transactions, that is to say parents could gift guns to heirs but you can't sell guns in parking lots without background checks.
Sounds good.
Mental health is another obvious one, not because of mass shooters (for reasons mentioned in thread) but because suicide is such a large portion of gun deaths, and is pretty irrefutably connected to mental health.
The suicide rate in the US in general isn't really out of proportion compared to other western nations, it's just that if someone ends up committing suicide a gun is a more likely choice because they're more easily available. What I'm missing there (and what I meant when I addressed mental health) is actual proper care for people with issues early on. I think we can agree that someone who ends up shooting people at a school in general has some kind of mental health issue that was never addressed in any way shape or form.
Stuff in that vein. Not a handful of corporations doing some superficial stuff that will make people feel better until the next tragedy.
I don't think companies do this to make people feel better, but because it's a presumably profitable decision first and foremost.
The real issue is an entirely different one. I asked you about what you believe is "effective reform" that will reduce the amount of school shootings in the US. Your proposals boiled down to preventing access to guns by people who shouldn't have access and/or theft and legislation that would stop guns being sold in parking lots without background checks. Yes, you also suggested ways to prevent gun suicides and gun accidents but those aren't the topic at hand.
I'm assuming you have data to back this up since you deemed those two points alone "effective reform" regarding school shootings. How many of the 200+ school shootings this century in the US would have been prevented if we would find a way to make unlicensed sales and unauthorized access/theft impossible?
On March 01 2018 13:48 NewSunshine wrote: Okay broseph, you can go away now. Take the win, or whatever it is you wanted out of this, because I'm not doing this. I've no reason to brag about anything, especially when it isn't germane to the conversation, and I damn sure don't have kind words for Walmart in general, but I'm surely not in the mood to argue with someone so eager to put words in my mouth. It's not worth it.
It's not about winning, I just want effective gun reform that means less people die from them. Some ideas are better than others, it's nothing personal broseph.
"I want effective reform" is a very easy way of dismissing each and every individual solution that needs to be enacted over time to form a proper complex way of dealing with this issue.
In the end school shootings in the US are a complex problem which will require a complex solution. However, "complex solutions" usually aren't easily enacted because you need to a) gather data (something gun lobbies in the US actively prevent) and b) enact a lot of small solutions that work together.
Norway, Canada, France, Austria, Germany, Finland. Know what these countries have in common? 1/3rd of guns per capita compared to the US. None of them have even remotely close to 1/3rd of school shootings per capita, all of them have way way less. Compared to Germany for example in the 21st century the US had ~40 times as many, which leaves us with a factor of ~10x as many once we adjust for population.
Reducing gun supply in the US would not make school shootings go away, neither would enacting age limits, neither would banning specific guns, neither would forced registering of guns, neither would a higher focus on mental health, neither would beefing up law enforcement so it actually enforces existing legislation and neither would getting rid of a culture that glorifies guns and makes both perpetrators and victims media stars.
Each and every single one of those can be (correctly) argued away by saying: "That's not going to change anything, I want an effective reform!" - Yet all of the above are for example something we have over here and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if similar things are true for other countries on the above list.
I'm not arguing that's not possible, but that's not what I'm advocating. I'm sorry if that's how you interpreted it.
Alright, what concrete measures would you consider "effective reform"? And no, arming teachers is likely not on the list for any other country in the world.
Responsible gun ownership and increased accountability for gun owners. So stuff like requiring trigger locks on guns not in use, in addition to reasonable expectations to secure a gun from children/those who shouldn't have access and/or theft.
Federally limiting unlicensed firearm transfers to non-monetary transactions, that is to say parents could gift guns to heirs but you can't sell guns in parking lots without background checks.
Mental health is another obvious one, not because of mass shooters (for reasons mentioned in thread) but because suicide is such a large portion of gun deaths, and is pretty irrefutably connected to mental health.
The suicide rate in the US in general isn't really out of proportion compared to other western nations, it's just that if someone ends up committing suicide a gun is a more likely choice because they're more easily available. What I'm missing there (and what I meant when I addressed mental health) is actual proper care for people with issues early on. I think we can agree that someone who ends up shooting people at a school in general has some kind of mental health issue that was never addressed in any way shape or form.
Stuff in that vein. Not a handful of corporations doing some superficial stuff that will make people feel better until the next tragedy.
I don't think companies do this to make people feel better, but because it's a presumably profitable decision first and foremost.
The real issue is an entirely different one. I asked you about what you believe is "effective reform" that will reduce the amount of school shootings in the US. Your proposals boiled down to preventing access to guns by people who shouldn't have access and/or theft and legislation that would stop guns being sold in parking lots without background checks. Yes, you also suggested ways to prevent gun suicides and gun accidents but those aren't the topic at hand.
I'm assuming you have data to back this up since you deemed those two points alone "effective reform" regarding school shootings. How many of the 200+ school shootings this century in the US would have been prevented if we would find a way to make unlicensed sales and unauthorized access/theft impossible?
I would say the focus on mass shootings is misdirected if the concern is gun deaths, if anything they act as the only events that draw attention to the massive underlying social and mental health issues related to the overwhelming number of gun deaths. Admittedly a morbid realization.
If you want a narrow focus on the contributions of school shootings (a specific type of mass [I presume we're talking mass, not someone shooting their ex and it happening at school] shooting) to the problems we face with gun deaths/injuries, I think it's misguided but I'd be wiling to indulge.
I don't have a statistic off-hand but a non-insignificant number of incidents of such narrow focus may have been prevented with reforms like I described. That wasn't a comprehensive list of reforms either, there's plenty of other options I've mentioned before and I haven't mentioned at all or I'm totally unaware of.
I don't really understand the point of this line of inquiry though?
On March 01 2018 13:48 NewSunshine wrote: Okay broseph, you can go away now. Take the win, or whatever it is you wanted out of this, because I'm not doing this. I've no reason to brag about anything, especially when it isn't germane to the conversation, and I damn sure don't have kind words for Walmart in general, but I'm surely not in the mood to argue with someone so eager to put words in my mouth. It's not worth it.
It's not about winning, I just want effective gun reform that means less people die from them. Some ideas are better than others, it's nothing personal broseph.
"I want effective reform" is a very easy way of dismissing each and every individual solution that needs to be enacted over time to form a proper complex way of dealing with this issue.
In the end school shootings in the US are a complex problem which will require a complex solution. However, "complex solutions" usually aren't easily enacted because you need to a) gather data (something gun lobbies in the US actively prevent) and b) enact a lot of small solutions that work together.
Norway, Canada, France, Austria, Germany, Finland. Know what these countries have in common? 1/3rd of guns per capita compared to the US. None of them have even remotely close to 1/3rd of school shootings per capita, all of them have way way less. Compared to Germany for example in the 21st century the US had ~40 times as many, which leaves us with a factor of ~10x as many once we adjust for population.
Reducing gun supply in the US would not make school shootings go away, neither would enacting age limits, neither would banning specific guns, neither would forced registering of guns, neither would a higher focus on mental health, neither would beefing up law enforcement so it actually enforces existing legislation and neither would getting rid of a culture that glorifies guns and makes both perpetrators and victims media stars.
Each and every single one of those can be (correctly) argued away by saying: "That's not going to change anything, I want an effective reform!" - Yet all of the above are for example something we have over here and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if similar things are true for other countries on the above list.
I'm not arguing that's not possible, but that's not what I'm advocating. I'm sorry if that's how you interpreted it.
Alright, what concrete measures would you consider "effective reform"? And no, arming teachers is likely not on the list for any other country in the world.
Responsible gun ownership and increased accountability for gun owners. So stuff like requiring trigger locks on guns not in use, in addition to reasonable expectations to secure a gun from children/those who shouldn't have access and/or theft.
Sounds good, also ties into accident prevention.
Federally limiting unlicensed firearm transfers to non-monetary transactions, that is to say parents could gift guns to heirs but you can't sell guns in parking lots without background checks.
Sounds good.
Mental health is another obvious one, not because of mass shooters (for reasons mentioned in thread) but because suicide is such a large portion of gun deaths, and is pretty irrefutably connected to mental health.
The suicide rate in the US in general isn't really out of proportion compared to other western nations, it's just that if someone ends up committing suicide a gun is a more likely choice because they're more easily available. What I'm missing there (and what I meant when I addressed mental health) is actual proper care for people with issues early on. I think we can agree that someone who ends up shooting people at a school in general has some kind of mental health issue that was never addressed in any way shape or form.
Stuff in that vein. Not a handful of corporations doing some superficial stuff that will make people feel better until the next tragedy.
I don't think companies do this to make people feel better, but because it's a presumably profitable decision first and foremost.
The real issue is an entirely different one. I asked you about what you believe is "effective reform" that will reduce the amount of school shootings in the US. Your proposals boiled down to preventing access to guns by people who shouldn't have access and/or theft and legislation that would stop guns being sold in parking lots without background checks. Yes, you also suggested ways to prevent gun suicides and gun accidents but those aren't the topic at hand.
I'm assuming you have data to back this up since you deemed those two points alone "effective reform" regarding school shootings. How many of the 200+ school shootings this century in the US would have been prevented if we would find a way to make unlicensed sales and unauthorized access/theft impossible?
I would say the focus on mass shootings is misdirected if the concern is gun deaths, if anything they act as the only events that draw attention to the massive underlying social and mental health issues related to the overwhelming number of gun deaths. Admittedly a morbid realization.
If you want a narrow focus on the contributions of school shootings (a specific type of mass [I presume we're talking mass, not someone shooting their ex and it happening at school] shooting) to the problems we face with gun deaths/injuries, I think it's misguided but I'd be wiling to indulge.
I don't have a statistic off-hand but a non-insignificant number of incidents of such narrow focus may have been prevented with reforms like I described. That wasn't a comprehensive list of reforms either, there's plenty of other options I've mentioned before and I haven't mentioned at all or I'm totally unaware of.
I don't really understand the point of this line of inquiry though?
We're in a topic about mass shootings, you dismissed someone believing age limits are one good idea among many as it being an ineffective angle for reforms. The concern aren't gun deaths/injuries in general in this topic, the concern are mass shootings. Right now, due to very recent history, at schools specifically.
Even if there was a reason to shift the topic to for example suicides (which there isn't, that might be the one topic where someone putting blame on guns is most likely completely misguided) this isn't the place for it.
That being said:
I don't have a statistic off-hand but a non-insignificant number of incidents of such narrow focus may have been prevented with reforms like I described.
You call out someone else's suggestion (which is a common one implemented across the globe) as ineffective and then propose something where neither you nor anyone else has an idea whether it would do something because there's no data available.
Don't you think that's a bit dishonest?
My main point is that "effective reform" for a complex topic such as mass shootings will require large numbers of small changes that combined form a complex solution. You're dismissing some of these small changes as ineffective but can't come up with something that can clearly show a higher impact on the issue compared to some of what these small changes, when combined, already have achieved in other countries.
There is something in the US specifically that goes wrong compared to any other western nation when it comes to this topic, if people both dismiss known solutions from other nations and fail to come up with things to prevent these issues in the future that are backed up by evidence then it will most likely continue the current course which results in more people dying in schools than ever before.
(And yes, I consider gun deaths/injuries in general a complex topic that needs complex solutions where something goes wrong in the US specifically as well but that's simply not the topic right now.)
On March 01 2018 13:48 NewSunshine wrote: Okay broseph, you can go away now. Take the win, or whatever it is you wanted out of this, because I'm not doing this. I've no reason to brag about anything, especially when it isn't germane to the conversation, and I damn sure don't have kind words for Walmart in general, but I'm surely not in the mood to argue with someone so eager to put words in my mouth. It's not worth it.
It's not about winning, I just want effective gun reform that means less people die from them. Some ideas are better than others, it's nothing personal broseph.
"I want effective reform" is a very easy way of dismissing each and every individual solution that needs to be enacted over time to form a proper complex way of dealing with this issue.
In the end school shootings in the US are a complex problem which will require a complex solution. However, "complex solutions" usually aren't easily enacted because you need to a) gather data (something gun lobbies in the US actively prevent) and b) enact a lot of small solutions that work together.
Norway, Canada, France, Austria, Germany, Finland. Know what these countries have in common? 1/3rd of guns per capita compared to the US. None of them have even remotely close to 1/3rd of school shootings per capita, all of them have way way less. Compared to Germany for example in the 21st century the US had ~40 times as many, which leaves us with a factor of ~10x as many once we adjust for population.
Reducing gun supply in the US would not make school shootings go away, neither would enacting age limits, neither would banning specific guns, neither would forced registering of guns, neither would a higher focus on mental health, neither would beefing up law enforcement so it actually enforces existing legislation and neither would getting rid of a culture that glorifies guns and makes both perpetrators and victims media stars.
Each and every single one of those can be (correctly) argued away by saying: "That's not going to change anything, I want an effective reform!" - Yet all of the above are for example something we have over here and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if similar things are true for other countries on the above list.
I'm not arguing that's not possible, but that's not what I'm advocating. I'm sorry if that's how you interpreted it.
Alright, what concrete measures would you consider "effective reform"? And no, arming teachers is likely not on the list for any other country in the world.
Responsible gun ownership and increased accountability for gun owners. So stuff like requiring trigger locks on guns not in use, in addition to reasonable expectations to secure a gun from children/those who shouldn't have access and/or theft.
Sounds good, also ties into accident prevention.
Federally limiting unlicensed firearm transfers to non-monetary transactions, that is to say parents could gift guns to heirs but you can't sell guns in parking lots without background checks.
Sounds good.
Mental health is another obvious one, not because of mass shooters (for reasons mentioned in thread) but because suicide is such a large portion of gun deaths, and is pretty irrefutably connected to mental health.
The suicide rate in the US in general isn't really out of proportion compared to other western nations, it's just that if someone ends up committing suicide a gun is a more likely choice because they're more easily available. What I'm missing there (and what I meant when I addressed mental health) is actual proper care for people with issues early on. I think we can agree that someone who ends up shooting people at a school in general has some kind of mental health issue that was never addressed in any way shape or form.
Stuff in that vein. Not a handful of corporations doing some superficial stuff that will make people feel better until the next tragedy.
I don't think companies do this to make people feel better, but because it's a presumably profitable decision first and foremost.
The real issue is an entirely different one. I asked you about what you believe is "effective reform" that will reduce the amount of school shootings in the US. Your proposals boiled down to preventing access to guns by people who shouldn't have access and/or theft and legislation that would stop guns being sold in parking lots without background checks. Yes, you also suggested ways to prevent gun suicides and gun accidents but those aren't the topic at hand.
I'm assuming you have data to back this up since you deemed those two points alone "effective reform" regarding school shootings. How many of the 200+ school shootings this century in the US would have been prevented if we would find a way to make unlicensed sales and unauthorized access/theft impossible?
I would say the focus on mass shootings is misdirected if the concern is gun deaths, if anything they act as the only events that draw attention to the massive underlying social and mental health issues related to the overwhelming number of gun deaths. Admittedly a morbid realization.
If you want a narrow focus on the contributions of school shootings (a specific type of mass [I presume we're talking mass, not someone shooting their ex and it happening at school] shooting) to the problems we face with gun deaths/injuries, I think it's misguided but I'd be wiling to indulge.
I don't have a statistic off-hand but a non-insignificant number of incidents of such narrow focus may have been prevented with reforms like I described. That wasn't a comprehensive list of reforms either, there's plenty of other options I've mentioned before and I haven't mentioned at all or I'm totally unaware of.
I don't really understand the point of this line of inquiry though?
We're in a topic about mass shootings, you dismissed someone believing age limits are one good idea among many as it being an ineffective angle for reforms. The concern aren't gun deaths/injuries in general in this topic, the concern are mass shootings. Right now, due to very recent history, at schools specifically.
Even if there was a reason to shift the topic to for example suicides (which there isn't, that might be the one topic where someone putting blame on guns is most likely completely misguided) this isn't the place for it.
I don't have a statistic off-hand but a non-insignificant number of incidents of such narrow focus may have been prevented with reforms like I described.
You call out someone else's suggestion (which is a common one implemented across the globe) as ineffective and then propose something where neither you nor anyone else has an idea whether it would do something because there's no data available.
Don't you think that's a bit dishonest?
My main point is that "effective reform" for a complex topic such as mass shootings will require large numbers of small changes that combined form a complex solution. You're dismissing some of these small changes as ineffective but can't come up with something that can clearly show a higher impact on the issue compared to some of what these small changes, when combined, already have achieved in other countries.
There is something in the US specifically that goes wrong compared to any other western nation when it comes to this topic, if people both dismiss known solutions from other nations and fail to come up with things to prevent these issues in the future that are backed up by evidence then it will most likely continue the current course which results in more people dying in schools than ever before.
(And yes, I consider gun deaths/injuries in general a complex topic that needs complex solutions where something goes wrong in the US specifically as well but that's simply not the topic right now.)
I mean you seem fixated on the part of this being focused on mass shootings like the fact that the overwhelming number of gun deaths have nothing to do with mass shootings isn't a legitimate reason for people who actually want to prevent the suffering caused by guns and see it significantly reduced to use incidents and platforms like this to draw attention to the major sources of gun deaths.
It's not that I'm against age rules in general, I'm just saying in the limited window of attention and goodwill it's a relatively fruitless pursuit. Particularly when there's something like increasing the burden of gun owners to be responsible in their ownership which will not only have an impact on mass shootings (several of the most recent ones) but a far more significant reduction in gun deaths/injuries.
There's a deeper critique about looking to corporations/the free market for salvation and a whole load of other stuff wrapped up in the critique I was offering but I can tell you want to keep this hyperfocused.
As it stands though, an age restriction practiced by a few corporations seems to be doing more harm to reaching effective reforms that reduce gun deaths (school shootings or otherwise) than good.
I've already seen ads and popular tweets that are indicative that whatever gets pushed will be almost wholly ineffective at addressing the issues while it will give the "baby step" folks something to celebrate and give theirr politicians a few more massacres before they expect real reforms.
"President Trump on Wednesday voiced support for confiscating guns from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, even if it violates due process rights.
“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.
“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.
Trump was responding to comments from Vice President Pence that families and local law enforcement should have more tools to report potentially dangerous individuals with weapons.
“Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons,” Pence said.
"President Trump on Wednesday voiced support for confiscating guns from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, even if it violates due process rights.
“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.
“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.
Trump was responding to comments from Vice President Pence that families and local law enforcement should have more tools to report potentially dangerous individuals with weapons.
“Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons,” Pence said.
Trump says to Fox News viewer: "Hey look, Obama's trying to take your guns." Viewer turns to look. Trump takes gun while he's turned around. Viewer turns back around to see his gun's been taken. Trump says again to Fox News viewer: "See, he took it! Aren't liberals the worst?"
Not exactly a mass shooting, but someone still had a gun in a college dorm and a "domestic situation" which we don't yet have details about escalated into two fatalities.
Seven hours after he was pinned to the ground outside Townville Elementary by a volunteer firefighter, Jesse acknowledged in an interview with investigators that he'd shot far fewer kids than he'd intended. The problem, he explained, was the weapon. He'd only had access to the .40 caliber pistol his father kept in a dresser drawer. It had jammed on the playground, just 12 seconds after he first pulled the trigger.
The weapon Jesse really wanted, the one he'd tried desperately to get, was, the teenager believed, locked in his father's gun safe: the Ruger Mini-14, a semiautomatic rifle much like the gun that, 17 months later, was fired again and again at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High, during one of the deadliest school shootings in American history.
Seven hours after he was pinned to the ground outside Townville Elementary by a volunteer firefighter, Jesse acknowledged in an interview with investigators that he'd shot far fewer kids than he'd intended. The problem, he explained, was the weapon. He'd only had access to the .40 caliber pistol his father kept in a dresser drawer. It had jammed on the playground, just 12 seconds after he first pulled the trigger.
The weapon Jesse really wanted, the one he'd tried desperately to get, was, the teenager believed, locked in his father's gun safe: the Ruger Mini-14, a semiautomatic rifle much like the gun that, 17 months later, was fired again and again at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High, during one of the deadliest school shootings in American history.
So is there any evidence available that it matters whether a shooting is carried out with an assault rifle or a pistol?
There really isn't any doubt that long-guns are better person vs person than handguns. Handguns are concealable self-defense weapons or for marksmanship. If you are in a situation where you actually might need to shoot someone, you bring a long gun. As to your question about 'assault rifles' you may need to clarify.
edit: I should point out that AR-15s aren't really optimized for lethally mowing down innocent people either, but it's definitely more effective than a 40 caliber handgun.
An AR-15 is a non- fully automatic version of a military assault rifle. It is not an assault rifle, as that is a weapon concept of a military doctrine that requires burst or automatic fire and it isn't capable of doing so, but I understand what you meant. Does it matter? I am not sure what you mean by that and is somewhat unwilling to place myself in the mindset of a school shooter. I suppose a handgun is more easily hidden, but has to reload more often.
In essence a police patrol in an unmarked car (and obviously in civilian uniform) noticed during the night five men hiting a parked car. They get out of the card and asked them (in typical polish police way) "WTF. For fucks sake??" or something along that line. They were attacked in response (with hands and stool). They shouted they are from police, but it didint help. They started to run but were caught. One of policeman where hit with a stool (9 stiches on head) the other pulled out a gun and after firing a warning shots started to shot at attackers. Fifteen shots fired in total (including warning shots), three knees and one foot hit. Attackers alive and in hospital (later turned out to be Ukrainian economic migrants, no criminal ties or past, sober but probably on drugs).
Now we can ask ourselves. Is this outcome good? In US they would have a huge chances of dying while assaulting policeman. In Poland police can only shoot if their life (or someone else) is threatend (and this is determined by court not police) and only after firing warning shots. Most people say that polish law is retarded and rigorously strict when it comes to using deadly force (including selfdefence by civilians).
I know this story isnt strictly about gun control but it shows at least one important aspect, how relative scarcity of guns in population allows totally diffrent rules of engagment concentrated not on safty of policeman but safty of civilians (even performing criminal acts).
EPT
