|
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 August 16 2019 07:37 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2019 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 16 2019 06:46 JimmiC wrote:On August 16 2019 06:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 16 2019 06:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 16 2019 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 15 2019 23:16 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2019 15:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 15 2019 14:56 Womwomwom wrote:On August 15 2019 12:24 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Do you have any idea the markup Philly police puts on the drugs they sell? I'd be pissed too.
EDIT: I agree though that this is different in that his targets are specific and represent quite real threats as opposed to the right-wing white nationalists terrorists and "incels" or whatever. Yeah with the developing story it’s certainly different but at the same time it’s still a symptom of American society. This is still a mass shooting. If police officers or anyone conducting law enforcement are going to expect to get shot up, I certainly understand if they adopt a shoot first, ask questions later stance. I say understand, not support. Imagine working in a field where any arrest could end up with 6 police officers being shot (one being a graze wound around the head region), said police officers being forced to flee the site, and forced to deal with some guy whose barricaded himself. Perhaps predator drones are actually the answer to this, clearly the police are being outmatched by dudes with a gun and no one in power wants to de-escalate firearms violence. FBI can’t stop all mass shootings (which this is) from happening, good guy FBI isn’t some omnipresent being unless the new argument is to ramp up state surveillance. They could get different jobs if they are so scared? This is the equivalent of telling poor people to get jobs or if the criminals just stopped committing crimes we would't have these problems. LOL. Come on now at least keep some consistency with your rhetoric. No, it's not. Saying cops don't have to be cops is not at all like telling a poor person to get a job or criminals to stop committing crimes. It is like not being in white club but being white club adjacent? Many people are cops because with their education, skills it is the best" job from a money and benefits package they can get. Others of course because they want to "serve and protect" and some because they just love power and guns. My point was your oversimplified solution is no better than peoples oversimplified solutions for others. No idea what you're trying to ask regarding white club or white club adjacency? Are you trying to argue cops are overpaid for their skillset and every other opportunity for someone qualified to be a cop is so underpaid as to render it not a viable choice? Fearful cowards not being cops or protected by laws that defer to their cowardliness is a great idea compared to telling a poor person to get a job. I was joking about a past confusing point of yours, no big deal. Your second point is complicated, in the US they are vastly underpaid considering the danger they are in and the power they wield. But I'm pointing out that many of the people who take that job do so because there are not a lot of other options for them at that pay and benefit package. Whiteclub and whiteclub adjacency isn't that complicated (particularly since Kwark was nice enough to give a thorough explanation)? So you think being a cop is the best job they could get, but it's also still underpaid? So for those with the skillsets of cops the best they can hope for is an underpaid job that makes them fear for their life in such a panic they kill innocent people and cover for their buddies when they do? If your argument is that cops are basically state sanctioned gangs I wouldn't disagree with you though. Your hatred for cops, American and world wide is well known. But it is still amazing how big your blind spot is in regards to what a difficult job it is and how much more difficult it is made by the accessibility of guns to everyone. I feel like some of you can't distinguish critique from hate? I'd agree with Kwarks sentiment there though tbh. I never said it isn't a difficult job, just that if they can't do it without their paranoia getting innocent people killed they should find different work. I can distinguish, critique would involve how they could get better. Not that world wide they need to be abolished and are state sanctioned gangs.
Incorrect. Critique does not necessetate I consider them essential or how to improve them, recognizing them as state sanctioned gangs also fits under the heading of critique.
And yes I believe PTSD is real (and that a shocking amount of american cops have it) and also that accidents do happen, and even more so in extremely high stress dangerous situations. Which because of your countries lax gun laws is basically every situation they encounter. It would be much easier and more likely successful if just did what works in the rest of the world instead of thinking that adding more guns to the system will somehow make it better. You are not going to get the kind of candidate that can handle the pressure, loss of life and near loss of life of friends and coworkers, mistake free. And with guns the mistake mean death.
No idea how PTSD came into this? Or what this part has to do with the points in discussion?
I also agree with Kwark's points, just not your interpretation of them. And my joke was unrelated to his points.
It was supposed to be a joke, how? Also I was agreeing with Kwark and his acab sentiment (so I'm pretty sure you don't agree?)
What I would agree with is the US policing system needs a drastic overhaul from the pay, training, laws, correction system, and so on.
What we disagree on is that I believe guns and American Gun culture is one of the biggest problems, you see it as some sort of solution.
We've known for decades (people were killed by the FBI for talking about it) the police need those things and more, the issue isn't whether that's needed or not, it's why we still haven't gotten it generations later.
You, like usual, have fabricated a position for me about "American Gun culture" so you're going to have to quote what you're talking about or I'll just have to ignore it as nonsense babbling.
|
On August 16 2019 07:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2019 07:37 JimmiC wrote:On August 16 2019 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 16 2019 06:46 JimmiC wrote:On August 16 2019 06:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 16 2019 06:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 16 2019 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 15 2019 23:16 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2019 15:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 15 2019 14:56 Womwomwom wrote: [quote]
Yeah with the developing story it’s certainly different but at the same time it’s still a symptom of American society. This is still a mass shooting.
If police officers or anyone conducting law enforcement are going to expect to get shot up, I certainly understand if they adopt a shoot first, ask questions later stance.
I say understand, not support. Imagine working in a field where any arrest could end up with 6 police officers being shot (one being a graze wound around the head region), said police officers being forced to flee the site, and forced to deal with some guy whose barricaded himself.
Perhaps predator drones are actually the answer to this, clearly the police are being outmatched by dudes with a gun and no one in power wants to de-escalate firearms violence. FBI can’t stop all mass shootings (which this is) from happening, good guy FBI isn’t some omnipresent being unless the new argument is to ramp up state surveillance. They could get different jobs if they are so scared? This is the equivalent of telling poor people to get jobs or if the criminals just stopped committing crimes we would't have these problems. LOL. Come on now at least keep some consistency with your rhetoric. No, it's not. Saying cops don't have to be cops is not at all like telling a poor person to get a job or criminals to stop committing crimes. It is like not being in white club but being white club adjacent? Many people are cops because with their education, skills it is the best" job from a money and benefits package they can get. Others of course because they want to "serve and protect" and some because they just love power and guns. My point was your oversimplified solution is no better than peoples oversimplified solutions for others. No idea what you're trying to ask regarding white club or white club adjacency? Are you trying to argue cops are overpaid for their skillset and every other opportunity for someone qualified to be a cop is so underpaid as to render it not a viable choice? Fearful cowards not being cops or protected by laws that defer to their cowardliness is a great idea compared to telling a poor person to get a job. I was joking about a past confusing point of yours, no big deal. Your second point is complicated, in the US they are vastly underpaid considering the danger they are in and the power they wield. But I'm pointing out that many of the people who take that job do so because there are not a lot of other options for them at that pay and benefit package. Whiteclub and whiteclub adjacency isn't that complicated (particularly since Kwark was nice enough to give a thorough explanation)? So you think being a cop is the best job they could get, but it's also still underpaid? So for those with the skillsets of cops the best they can hope for is an underpaid job that makes them fear for their life in such a panic they kill innocent people and cover for their buddies when they do? If your argument is that cops are basically state sanctioned gangs I wouldn't disagree with you though. Your hatred for cops, American and world wide is well known. But it is still amazing how big your blind spot is in regards to what a difficult job it is and how much more difficult it is made by the accessibility of guns to everyone. I feel like some of you can't distinguish critique from hate? I'd agree with Kwarks sentiment there though tbh. I never said it isn't a difficult job, just that if they can't do it without their paranoia getting innocent people killed they should find different work. I can distinguish, critique would involve how they could get better. Not that world wide they need to be abolished and are state sanctioned gangs. Incorrect. Critique does not necessetate I consider them essential or how to improve them, recognizing them as state sanctioned gangs also fits under the heading of critique. Show nested quote +And yes I believe PTSD is real (and that a shocking amount of american cops have it) and also that accidents do happen, and even more so in extremely high stress dangerous situations. Which because of your countries lax gun laws is basically every situation they encounter. It would be much easier and more likely successful if just did what works in the rest of the world instead of thinking that adding more guns to the system will somehow make it better. You are not going to get the kind of candidate that can handle the pressure, loss of life and near loss of life of friends and coworkers, mistake free. And with guns the mistake mean death.
No idea how PTSD came into this? Or what this part has to do with the points in discussion? Show nested quote +I also agree with Kwark's points, just not your interpretation of them. And my joke was unrelated to his points. It was supposed to be a joke, how? Also I was agreeing with Kwark and his acab sentiment (so I'm pretty sure you don't agree?) Show nested quote +What I would agree with is the US policing system needs a drastic overhaul from the pay, training, laws, correction system, and so on.
What we disagree on is that I believe guns and American Gun culture is one of the biggest problems, you see it as some sort of solution. We've known for decades (people were killed by the FBI for talking about it) the police need those things and more, the issue isn't whether that's needed or not, it's why we still haven't gotten it generations later. You, like usual, have fabricated a position for me about "American Gun culture" so you're going to have to quote what you're talking about or I'll just have to ignore it as nonsense babbling. If you consider that a detailed analysis and assessment you can go ahead and keep calling it as such. I will just disagree, but use the term so that you do not feel offended or victimized.
PTSD comes into account because you called cops who make mistakes cowards and other derogatory terms. The negative assumptions and terminology fits with your constant "critique" of the police force, which is why I mistakenly used the word hate.
If you didn't get the joke not point going further into it.
|
On August 16 2019 08:59 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2019 07:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 16 2019 07:37 JimmiC wrote:On August 16 2019 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 16 2019 06:46 JimmiC wrote:On August 16 2019 06:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 16 2019 06:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 16 2019 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 15 2019 23:16 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2019 15:04 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
They could get different jobs if they are so scared? This is the equivalent of telling poor people to get jobs or if the criminals just stopped committing crimes we would't have these problems. LOL. Come on now at least keep some consistency with your rhetoric. No, it's not. Saying cops don't have to be cops is not at all like telling a poor person to get a job or criminals to stop committing crimes. It is like not being in white club but being white club adjacent? Many people are cops because with their education, skills it is the best" job from a money and benefits package they can get. Others of course because they want to "serve and protect" and some because they just love power and guns. My point was your oversimplified solution is no better than peoples oversimplified solutions for others. No idea what you're trying to ask regarding white club or white club adjacency? Are you trying to argue cops are overpaid for their skillset and every other opportunity for someone qualified to be a cop is so underpaid as to render it not a viable choice? Fearful cowards not being cops or protected by laws that defer to their cowardliness is a great idea compared to telling a poor person to get a job. I was joking about a past confusing point of yours, no big deal. Your second point is complicated, in the US they are vastly underpaid considering the danger they are in and the power they wield. But I'm pointing out that many of the people who take that job do so because there are not a lot of other options for them at that pay and benefit package. Whiteclub and whiteclub adjacency isn't that complicated (particularly since Kwark was nice enough to give a thorough explanation)? So you think being a cop is the best job they could get, but it's also still underpaid? So for those with the skillsets of cops the best they can hope for is an underpaid job that makes them fear for their life in such a panic they kill innocent people and cover for their buddies when they do? If your argument is that cops are basically state sanctioned gangs I wouldn't disagree with you though. Your hatred for cops, American and world wide is well known. But it is still amazing how big your blind spot is in regards to what a difficult job it is and how much more difficult it is made by the accessibility of guns to everyone. I feel like some of you can't distinguish critique from hate? I'd agree with Kwarks sentiment there though tbh. I never said it isn't a difficult job, just that if they can't do it without their paranoia getting innocent people killed they should find different work. I can distinguish, critique would involve how they could get better. Not that world wide they need to be abolished and are state sanctioned gangs. Incorrect. Critique does not necessetate I consider them essential or how to improve them, recognizing them as state sanctioned gangs also fits under the heading of critique. And yes I believe PTSD is real (and that a shocking amount of american cops have it) and also that accidents do happen, and even more so in extremely high stress dangerous situations. Which because of your countries lax gun laws is basically every situation they encounter. It would be much easier and more likely successful if just did what works in the rest of the world instead of thinking that adding more guns to the system will somehow make it better. You are not going to get the kind of candidate that can handle the pressure, loss of life and near loss of life of friends and coworkers, mistake free. And with guns the mistake mean death.
No idea how PTSD came into this? Or what this part has to do with the points in discussion? I also agree with Kwark's points, just not your interpretation of them. And my joke was unrelated to his points. It was supposed to be a joke, how? Also I was agreeing with Kwark and his acab sentiment (so I'm pretty sure you don't agree?) What I would agree with is the US policing system needs a drastic overhaul from the pay, training, laws, correction system, and so on.
What we disagree on is that I believe guns and American Gun culture is one of the biggest problems, you see it as some sort of solution. We've known for decades (people were killed by the FBI for talking about it) the police need those things and more, the issue isn't whether that's needed or not, it's why we still haven't gotten it generations later. You, like usual, have fabricated a position for me about "American Gun culture" so you're going to have to quote what you're talking about or I'll just have to ignore it as nonsense babbling. If you consider that a detailed analysis and assessment you can go ahead and keep calling it as such. I will just disagree, That's a fine disagreement which we could explolre the merits of or not
but use the term so that you do not feel offended or victimized.
that is superfluous and unsubstantiated ad hominem which I really wish you could engage without
+ Show Spoiler +PTSD comes into account because you called cops who make mistakes cowards and other derogatory terms. You're excusing "mistakes" (cops shooting unarmed innocent people) with PTSD... wut? The negative assumptions and terminology fits with your constant "critique" of the police force, which is why I mistakenly used the word hate.
now you know. If you didn't get the joke not point going further into it.
Probably. This is why I requested you leave stuff like that out of your posts as it's not helpful in communicating on the topic at hand.
|
I've been trying to leave it out for like 3 posts and yet you keep picking at it. If you must it was related to Inge's response and questions that you never answered, which was too bad because for a change it was actually getting interesting but instead you went back to the surface comments you always make about the bad US and Bad capitalism. This is just another example of you creating the situation that is causing you problems.
I am not excusing anything. You are doing your technique of taking things out of context and adding meanings that fit your assumptions. And I'm going to choose to not engage with you further right now because it clearly not going anywhere and your negativity seems extra strong or maybe I'm just not in the mood to deal with it.
|
On August 16 2019 09:43 JimmiC wrote: I've been trying to leave it out for like 3 posts and yet you keep picking at it. If you must it was related to Inge's response and questions that you never answered, which was too bad because for a change it was actually getting interesting
iirc you and others called for that to stop or be put in a separate thread, but your call for me to post on it in the US politics thread further is noted and I'll consider doing so in thread as opposed to PM's.
I am not excusing anything. You are doing your technique of taking things out of context and adding meanings that fit your assumptions. And I'm going to choose to not engage with you further right now because it clearly not going anywhere and your negativity seems extra strong or maybe I'm just not in the mood to deal with it.
I'd say you're doing the thing where you don't quote what you're talking about because it doesn't match your description. I'd agree I addressed your accusations about my rhetoric and otherwise so unless there are others we're through.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
I'm curious on people's thoughts/reading on "H.R. 8 Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019" and both the political and practical (regarding gun control) ramifications?
|
Several outlets have been reporting on the contagion effect part of recent mass shootings. I give you articles from an activist groups and the Scientific American. The gist is that the patterns appear to follow past suicide contagions:
After 9 years of construction and testing (and a couple decades of on-again, off-again planning), Vienna’s subway, the U-Bahn, opened for business on February 25, 1978. They continued to build it out over the next few years, and finished the entire initial network of tracks and stations in 1982.
By the mid-’80s, those tracks unfortunately became a locally well-known tool to kill oneself. Specifically, from The BMJ:
From 1983 to 1986 a sharp increase in the number of subway suicides in Vienna was linked to a dramatic increase in their coverage in the media. In 1987 the Austrian Association for Suicide Prevention launched a media campaign to change the amount and the nature of press coverage of subway suicide. After June 1987 the Austrian press either did not report the subway suicides at all or covered them in short reports in the inside pages.
During the years of sensational news coverage there were up to nine subway suicides per six months. After the sensational coverage ceased, there were between one and four subway suicides per six month interval. [...]
Copycat suicides are so well-studied that the phenomenon has been named — “the Werther effect” — after a Goethe character who’s said to have inspired a spate of copycat suicides in the late 1700s. Modern studies suggest that celebrity suicides can have the same effect today: “Compared to the number of suicides as predicted by the model, [Robin Williams’] death was associated with a 12.8% increase in suicides in August and September 2014 and a 25.5% increase in suicides attributable to suffocation during those months.”
Researchers at Arizona State University analyzed news reports of gun-related incidents from 1997 to 2013. They hypothesized that the rampages did not occur randomly over time but instead were clustered in patterns. The investigators applied a mathematical model and found that shootings that resulted in at least four deaths launched a period of contagion, marked by a heightened likelihood of more bloodshed, lasting an average of 13 days. Roughly 20 to 30 percent of all such violence took place in these windows.
Previous studies have shown that suicide can be similarly contagious. In one recent example, researchers found a correlation between celebrity suicides, like that of Robin Williams, and an increase in suicidal thoughts in an online Reddit suicide watch group for people battling depression. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mass-shootings-are-contagious/ https://opensourcedefense.org/blog/what-is-going-on-with-mass-shootings-lessons-from-past-solved-problems
+ Show Spoiler [coverage guidelines] +Inform, Don’t Sensationalize
– Don’t include suicide in the headline. For example, “Kate Spade Dead at 55.”
– Don’t use images of the location or method of death, grieving loved ones, memorials or funerals; instead use school, work or family photos.
– If there was a note from the deceased, do not detail what the note contained or refer to it as a “suicide note.”
Choose Your Words Carefully
– When describing research or studies on suicide, use words like “increase” or “rise” rather than “epidemic” or “skyrocketing.”
– Do not refer to suicide as “successful,” “unsuccessful” or a “failed attempt.” Do not use the term “committed suicide.” Instead use “died by suicide,” “completed suicide,” “killed him/herself,” or “ended his/her life.”
– Do not describe a suicide as “inexplicable” or “without warning.”
Similar ISIS lone wolf attacks weren't from material support, but inspiration:
Chatting with my OSD colleagues this morning, I shared a gut feeling after hearing about the second mass shooting yesterday: “This feels like the wave of ISIS attacks that happened in Europe a few years ago. There’s such a performative/contagious aspect to them.”
Then I decided to check that gut feeling against the actual data. (Spreadsheet here.) What did the rise and fall of those lone wolf ISIS attacks look like empirically? I included only the Americas, Europe, and Australia in the chart below — the vast majority of victims died in attacks in Middle Eastern countries, but the scope of this inquiry is to see how a meme (in the selfish gene sense) translates into real world violence. In other words, how the ISIS meme translated into violence in countries where ISIS could support attacks largely only through ideas, not materiel.
The chart almost perfectly tracks the rise and fall of ISIS’s territorial holdings, on a trailing 6-12 months basis.
But why should that be? Very few of these attackers received material support from ISIS, and in fact for many of them, the only sense in which they were ISIS attacks at all is that the attacker pledged allegiance to the group. So this graph could mostly be titled, “Loners who rent a truck or get a gun or make a bomb, shout something about ISIS, and then kill people: 2014-2019.” People are no less able to do that in 2019 than they were in 2015, or 2005 or 1995 for that matter. In most cases, ISIS’s contribution was just the awareness that this is a thing that one can do. And there’s no reason that would have changed from 2014 to 2019. The internet still exists, people still post pretty much whatever they want, and information spreads anarchically.
Actually, though, I glossed over an important nuance: “ISIS’s contribution was just the awareness that this is a thing that one can do.” I think that may be a lot more powerful than we think. The declaration that hey, this is a thing. If you are part of this, you are part of something.
So how do we apply this to mass murder? And why are mass shootings so much more identifiably “a thing” than mass murder in general? A mass murderer burned 35 people to death in Japan two weeks ago, and it was out of the news within a couple days.
I wrote a little while ago about why mass shootings stick in our heads (“Why people worry more about mass shootings than car accidents: lessons from the Lebanese Civil War”). That article also explains why mass shootings get so much more coverage than other murders (which are ~280 times more common).
But it didn’t address why the idea sticks in a would-be shooter’s head. For that, we turn to Malcolm Gladwell.
Gladwell wrote an essay on “thresholds”, the idea that (using riots as an example) each person violating a norm publicly makes it easier for the next person to do the same. Both by laying out a specific vision of how to do it, and by demonstrating “hey, it’s a thing”.
We misleadingly use the word “copycat” to describe contagious behavior — implying that new participants in an epidemic act in a manner identical to the source of their infection. But rioters are not homogeneous. If a riot evolves as it spreads, starting with the hotheaded rock thrower and ending with the upstanding citizen, then rioters are a profoundly heterogeneous group.
Finally, Granovetter’s model suggests that riots are sometimes more than spontaneous outbursts. If they evolve, it means they have depth and length and a history. Granovetter thought that the threshold hypothesis could be used to describe everything from elections to strikes, and even matters as prosaic as how people decide it’s time to leave a party. He was writing in 1978, long before teen-age boys made a habit of wandering through their high schools with assault rifles. But what if the way to explain the school-shooting epidemic is to go back and use the Granovetterian model — to think of it as a slow-motion, ever-evolving riot, in which each new participant’s action makes sense in reaction to and in combination with those who came before?
I continue to fear the history of gun control efforts and failures, and the subtext of politicization, are still too formidable forces to make progress on this issue. The people in the middle, with no particular animus or bitterness on the subject of guns and gun laws, may be big enough to demand better public treatment of mass murderers.
|
Imo,it would be great if news coverage was like that for infamy killings.
That being said it plays so well with "deep state" "false flag" and any conspiracy fantasy because it is withholding information, which is space for people who make shit up to fill.
|
Great, HPD (hawaii police Dep) are getting tipped off that there plans to be a mass shooting at any of the Walmart tailgate events.
They didn’t notify media yet because they don’t want the perpetrators to change venues.
|
On August 18 2019 08:55 Emnjay808 wrote: Great, HPD (hawaii police Dep) are getting tipped off that there plans to be a mass shooting at any of the Walmart tailgate events.
They didn’t notify media yet because they don’t want the perpetrators to change venues.
How do we know about this if media wasn't notified?
|
On August 16 2019 04:57 JimmiC wrote: This is not meant to be insulting but I'm not really sure how to ask it.
Do American's really not know how bad they are in regards to gun accidents, police shootings, shootings, Murders with guns, gun suicides and so on?
Perhaps this is where the disconnect is, they just do not know that they are in the 100's of times worse when compared to other developed nations. Most of us are pretty well aware of it, theres something in the news every day it seems like
|
On August 20 2019 00:10 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2019 04:57 JimmiC wrote: This is not meant to be insulting but I'm not really sure how to ask it.
Do American's really not know how bad they are in regards to gun accidents, police shootings, shootings, Murders with guns, gun suicides and so on?
Perhaps this is where the disconnect is, they just do not know that they are in the 100's of times worse when compared to other developed nations. Most of us are pretty well aware of it, theres something in the news every day it seems like Even compariticly, you think people know that it is like 300 times worse (%30,000). Or so people think there is a problem, and its worse but not that much worse?
|
I don't know, tough to say. My twitter feed is pretty well aware that we have a comparatively serious problem, and this thread also makes that abundantly clear. Can't really speak to the rest of the population, but I assume the second amendment people out there assume that everything is mostly fine. For the record I am in agreement with you guys.
|
/offtopic:
Over the years, there's so many times I've seen this thread popup on top, not because there is an ongoing discussion, but mainly due to new mass shootings happening so many times.
Sorry if I offend any U.S. people here, but the main thing I derived from this thread is that, about 90+% of all mass shootings worldwide are from this one country. Regardless of the "gun"-discussion, it is simply remarkable that such a progressive country is so conservative when it comes to this.
If this was ANY other subject, there would've been laws, mitigations and hundreds of countermeasures, yet after 100+ shootings, nothing has changed. One simple and clear example: 9/11. One incident, Thousands of mitigations.
I'm an outsider to the gun discussion and to be frank, I DO understand both sides of the discussion. However, one thing should be clear as day. The current situation is simply not working. Sometimes you have to give up a hand, to not lose your entire arm.
|
On August 20 2019 22:37 WonnaPlay wrote: /offtopic:
Over the years, there's so many times I've seen this thread popup on top, not because there is an ongoing discussion, but mainly due to new mass shootings happening so many times.
Sorry if I offend any U.S. people here, but the main thing I derived from this thread is that, about 90+% of all mass shootings worldwide are from this one country. Regardless of the "gun"-discussion, it is simply remarkable that such a progressive country is so conservative when it comes to this.
If this was ANY other subject, there would've been laws, mitigations and hundreds of countermeasures, yet after 100+ shootings, nothing has changed. One simple and clear example: 9/11. One incident, Thousands of mitigations.
I'm an outsider to the gun discussion and to be frank, I DO understand both sides of the discussion. However, one thing should be clear as day. The current situation is simply not working. Sometimes you have to give up a hand, to not lose your entire arm.
Can you back that up with some statistics?
|
On August 20 2019 22:37 WonnaPlay wrote: /offtopic:
Over the years, there's so many times I've seen this thread popup on top, not because there is an ongoing discussion, but mainly due to new mass shootings happening so many times.
Sorry if I offend any U.S. people here, but the main thing I derived from this thread is that, about 90+% of all mass shootings worldwide are from this one country. Regardless of the "gun"-discussion, it is simply remarkable that such a progressive country is so conservative when it comes to this.
If this was ANY other subject, there would've been laws, mitigations and hundreds of countermeasures, yet after 100+ shootings, nothing has changed. One simple and clear example: 9/11. One incident, Thousands of mitigations.
I'm an outsider to the gun discussion and to be frank, I DO understand both sides of the discussion. However, one thing should be clear as day. The current situation is simply not working. Sometimes you have to give up a hand, to not lose your entire arm. When you "DO understand both sides of the discussion," you likely already understand the facets in which you'll be taken to task over in your characterization. Mass shootings over gun crimes in general, a focus on the bit player in mass shootings (semi auto rifles) as opposed to the clear preference, a cultural legislative agenda that doesn't care if it makes a lick of difference. With the cultural agenda, a political agenda that wants to gain votes, money, and power over the issue and who may be advantageously blamed. This may all be very old hat for you, as it is for me.
One article which strangely made it into national newspapers a couple of years ago will serve as a summary of my first thoughts on your particular concerns. I will spoiler part to cut down on bloat, but I do suggest reading it to better understand your qualms about a progressive country and the current semi-conservative approach to guns:
Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I'd lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn't prove much about what America's policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.
+ Show Spoiler +When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gunowner walks into the store to buy an "assault weapon." It's an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, arocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos. As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don't make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless. As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United Statesevery year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help? However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them. By the time we published our project, I didn't believe in many of the interventions I'd heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don't want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can't endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news. Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections. Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts. Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans' plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves. Washington Post Leah Libresco, statistician, formerly at 538, written in 2017.
|
On August 20 2019 23:33 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2019 22:37 WonnaPlay wrote: /offtopic:
Over the years, there's so many times I've seen this thread popup on top, not because there is an ongoing discussion, but mainly due to new mass shootings happening so many times.
Sorry if I offend any U.S. people here, but the main thing I derived from this thread is that, about 90+% of all mass shootings worldwide are from this one country. Regardless of the "gun"-discussion, it is simply remarkable that such a progressive country is so conservative when it comes to this.
If this was ANY other subject, there would've been laws, mitigations and hundreds of countermeasures, yet after 100+ shootings, nothing has changed. One simple and clear example: 9/11. One incident, Thousands of mitigations.
I'm an outsider to the gun discussion and to be frank, I DO understand both sides of the discussion. However, one thing should be clear as day. The current situation is simply not working. Sometimes you have to give up a hand, to not lose your entire arm. Can you back that up with some statistics?
Sure. I will have to mention (and I should have mentioned initially) is that I am comparing against the developed world, as I see the United States as a developed country. Below are some articles regarding this topic.
“The US makes up less than 5% of the world’s population, but holds 31% of global mass shooters.” - https://www.vox.com/2018/8/29/17792776/us-gun-deaths-global
"Confirmation That the United States Has Six Times Its Global Share of Public Mass Shooters, Courtesy of Lott and Moody’s Data" - https://econjwatch.org/File download/1105/LankfordMar2019.pdf?mimetype=pdf
"Gun homicide rates are 25.2 times higher in the US than in other high-income countries" - https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html
Take a good look at the CNN infograph, which isn't necessarily about mass shootings, but gives you and indication in which types of countries gun murders are a problem. I for one think that the U.S. shouldn't be in the "red zone", period.
edit; typo
|
On August 21 2019 02:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2019 22:37 WonnaPlay wrote: /offtopic:
Over the years, there's so many times I've seen this thread popup on top, not because there is an ongoing discussion, but mainly due to new mass shootings happening so many times.
Sorry if I offend any U.S. people here, but the main thing I derived from this thread is that, about 90+% of all mass shootings worldwide are from this one country. Regardless of the "gun"-discussion, it is simply remarkable that such a progressive country is so conservative when it comes to this.
If this was ANY other subject, there would've been laws, mitigations and hundreds of countermeasures, yet after 100+ shootings, nothing has changed. One simple and clear example: 9/11. One incident, Thousands of mitigations.
I'm an outsider to the gun discussion and to be frank, I DO understand both sides of the discussion. However, one thing should be clear as day. The current situation is simply not working. Sometimes you have to give up a hand, to not lose your entire arm. When you "DO understand both sides of the discussion," you likely already understand the facets in which you'll be taken to task over in your characterization. Mass shootings over gun crimes in general, a focus on the bit player in mass shootings (semi auto rifles) as opposed to the clear preference, a cultural legislative agenda that doesn't care if it makes a lick of difference. With the cultural agenda, a political agenda that wants to gain votes, money, and power over the issue and who may be advantageously blamed. This may all be very old hat for you, as it is for me. One article which strangely made it into national newspapers a couple of years ago will serve as a summary of my first thoughts on your particular concerns. I will spoiler part to cut down on bloat, but I do suggest reading it to better understand your qualms about a progressive country and the current semi-conservative approach to guns: Show nested quote +Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I'd lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn't prove much about what America's policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths. + Show Spoiler +When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gunowner walks into the store to buy an "assault weapon." It's an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, arocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos. As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don't make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless. As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United Statesevery year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help? However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them. By the time we published our project, I didn't believe in many of the interventions I'd heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don't want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can't endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news. Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections. Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts. Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans' plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves. Washington PostLeah Libresco, statistician, formerly at 538, written in 2017.
Yes, you're correct. I ignorantly just blabbed my mouth here, fully knowing that I made some "claims" in the discussion, whilst being kind of oblivious to the larger dilemma. I tried to mask it with an /offtopic as I really think that you guys could solve the greater parts of this problem, but the discussion is fully stuck and has been for years.
I like your article and I am not trying to pretend I have a solution to your problem, as the owning of guns is very inherent to your whole culture. I specifically agree with this part : "We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves."
In Europe we have our own problems with similar types of discussions whilst being stuck Example: When you're for refugees, you're an leftist. If you're against refugees, you're a racist. If you compare this example with : Example: When you're against guns, you're against the 2nd amendment. If you're for guns, you "don't care about the children and mass murders.
Both examples are infuriating on all ends, both examples need solutions that cater for all, not just some. Both examples are unfortunately unlikely to get resolved in this age of "extremes", where neither party do any concessions.
I believe the gun and refugee discussions (or "Zwarte Piet discussion" in holland) are simply tools of the extreme left and extreme right to create larger discrepancies within the people of a nation. These discussions do not only feed hatred, but they actually help convince the people on both sides of the extremes that what they do is "just". Thus, making them more extreme in their cause, with possible escalation as an end.
|
On August 21 2019 16:10 WonnaPlay wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2019 23:33 Sent. wrote:On August 20 2019 22:37 WonnaPlay wrote: /offtopic:
Over the years, there's so many times I've seen this thread popup on top, not because there is an ongoing discussion, but mainly due to new mass shootings happening so many times.
Sorry if I offend any U.S. people here, but the main thing I derived from this thread is that, about 90+% of all mass shootings worldwide are from this one country. Regardless of the "gun"-discussion, it is simply remarkable that such a progressive country is so conservative when it comes to this.
If this was ANY other subject, there would've been laws, mitigations and hundreds of countermeasures, yet after 100+ shootings, nothing has changed. One simple and clear example: 9/11. One incident, Thousands of mitigations.
I'm an outsider to the gun discussion and to be frank, I DO understand both sides of the discussion. However, one thing should be clear as day. The current situation is simply not working. Sometimes you have to give up a hand, to not lose your entire arm. Can you back that up with some statistics? Sure. I will have to mention (and I should have mentioned initially) is that I am comparing against the developed world, as I see the United States as a developed country. Below are some articles regarding this topic. “The US makes up less than 5% of the world’s population, but holds 31% of global mass shooters.” - https://www.vox.com/2018/8/29/17792776/us-gun-deaths-global "Confirmation That the United States Has Six Times Its Global Share of Public Mass Shooters, Courtesy of Lott and Moody’s Data" - https://econjwatch.org/File download/1105/LankfordMar2019.pdf?mimetype=pdf"Gun homicide rates are 25.2 times higher in the US than in other high-income countries" - https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.htmlTake a good look at the CNN infograph, which isn't necessarily about mass shootings, but gives you and indication in which types of countries gun murders are a problem. I for one think that the U.S. shouldn't be in the "red zone", period. edit; typo
I generally agree with you, but i hate manipulative infographs like that. They clearly chose the cutoff for red at at 30+ because the US is at 36, and thus barely falls in the red zone, making it feel qualitatively different and much more similar to the deep red 200+ or 300+ countries, rather than the <30 countries.
And it is not like these statistics actually need that kind of manipulation. They actually speak for themselves and show that the US has a major problem.
|
On August 21 2019 18:30 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2019 16:10 WonnaPlay wrote:On August 20 2019 23:33 Sent. wrote:On August 20 2019 22:37 WonnaPlay wrote: /offtopic:
Over the years, there's so many times I've seen this thread popup on top, not because there is an ongoing discussion, but mainly due to new mass shootings happening so many times.
Sorry if I offend any U.S. people here, but the main thing I derived from this thread is that, about 90+% of all mass shootings worldwide are from this one country. Regardless of the "gun"-discussion, it is simply remarkable that such a progressive country is so conservative when it comes to this.
If this was ANY other subject, there would've been laws, mitigations and hundreds of countermeasures, yet after 100+ shootings, nothing has changed. One simple and clear example: 9/11. One incident, Thousands of mitigations.
I'm an outsider to the gun discussion and to be frank, I DO understand both sides of the discussion. However, one thing should be clear as day. The current situation is simply not working. Sometimes you have to give up a hand, to not lose your entire arm. Can you back that up with some statistics? Sure. I will have to mention (and I should have mentioned initially) is that I am comparing against the developed world, as I see the United States as a developed country. Below are some articles regarding this topic. “The US makes up less than 5% of the world’s population, but holds 31% of global mass shooters.” - https://www.vox.com/2018/8/29/17792776/us-gun-deaths-global "Confirmation That the United States Has Six Times Its Global Share of Public Mass Shooters, Courtesy of Lott and Moody’s Data" - https://econjwatch.org/File download/1105/LankfordMar2019.pdf?mimetype=pdf"Gun homicide rates are 25.2 times higher in the US than in other high-income countries" - https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.htmlTake a good look at the CNN infograph, which isn't necessarily about mass shootings, but gives you and indication in which types of countries gun murders are a problem. I for one think that the U.S. shouldn't be in the "red zone", period. edit; typo I generally agree with you, but i hate manipulative infographs like that. They clearly chose the cutoff for red at at 30+ because the US is at 36, and thus barely falls in the red zone, making it feel qualitatively different and much more similar to the deep red 200+ or 300+ countries, rather than the <30 countries. And it is not like these statistics actually need that kind of manipulation. They actually speak for themselves and show that the US has a major problem.
Yeah, I agree. Unfortunately it's hard to find unbiased articles/statistics like that and I did not want to spend too much time on searching for data that would "verify my statements", as I don't think anyone disputes these facts, yet only interpret them differently.
No matter which research you will find however, it is simply a fact, that out of any developed country, USA takes the cake by far. As a dutch citizen I don't see many similarities with the culture in Africa or Asia, but we do have many similarities with the culture that the USA has, which is why I dismiss many countries within this statistic. Picking a real statistic is therefore pretty hard, but I will not put (unless the Americans want to) America on the same scale as Colombia/ Venezuela / Senegal / etc. Therefore I compare the US to Europe and any rich country. By this comparison, USA is the most dangerous developed country in the world by far (sorry, "bold statement" again).
/sidenote: This is actually a really big problem within the big data science. "Corruption of data" or "misinterpretation" is something widespread and very dangerous, but totally a different subject.
|
On August 21 2019 16:29 WonnaPlay wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2019 02:50 Danglars wrote:On August 20 2019 22:37 WonnaPlay wrote: /offtopic:
Over the years, there's so many times I've seen this thread popup on top, not because there is an ongoing discussion, but mainly due to new mass shootings happening so many times.
Sorry if I offend any U.S. people here, but the main thing I derived from this thread is that, about 90+% of all mass shootings worldwide are from this one country. Regardless of the "gun"-discussion, it is simply remarkable that such a progressive country is so conservative when it comes to this.
If this was ANY other subject, there would've been laws, mitigations and hundreds of countermeasures, yet after 100+ shootings, nothing has changed. One simple and clear example: 9/11. One incident, Thousands of mitigations.
I'm an outsider to the gun discussion and to be frank, I DO understand both sides of the discussion. However, one thing should be clear as day. The current situation is simply not working. Sometimes you have to give up a hand, to not lose your entire arm. When you "DO understand both sides of the discussion," you likely already understand the facets in which you'll be taken to task over in your characterization. Mass shootings over gun crimes in general, a focus on the bit player in mass shootings (semi auto rifles) as opposed to the clear preference, a cultural legislative agenda that doesn't care if it makes a lick of difference. With the cultural agenda, a political agenda that wants to gain votes, money, and power over the issue and who may be advantageously blamed. This may all be very old hat for you, as it is for me. One article which strangely made it into national newspapers a couple of years ago will serve as a summary of my first thoughts on your particular concerns. I will spoiler part to cut down on bloat, but I do suggest reading it to better understand your qualms about a progressive country and the current semi-conservative approach to guns: Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I'd lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn't prove much about what America's policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths. + Show Spoiler +When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gunowner walks into the store to buy an "assault weapon." It's an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, arocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos. As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don't make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless. As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United Statesevery year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help? However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them. By the time we published our project, I didn't believe in many of the interventions I'd heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don't want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can't endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news. Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections. Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts. Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans' plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves. Washington PostLeah Libresco, statistician, formerly at 538, written in 2017. Yes, you're correct. I ignorantly just blabbed my mouth here, fully knowing that I made some "claims" in the discussion, whilst being kind of oblivious to the larger dilemma. I tried to mask it with an /offtopic as I really think that you guys could solve the greater parts of this problem, but the discussion is fully stuck and has been for years. I like your article and I am not trying to pretend I have a solution to your problem, as the owning of guns is very inherent to your whole culture. I specifically agree with this part : "We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves." In Europe we have our own problems with similar types of discussions whilst being stuck Example: When you're for refugees, you're an leftist. If you're against refugees, you're a racist. If you compare this example with : Example: When you're against guns, you're against the 2nd amendment. If you're for guns, you "don't care about the children and mass murders. Both examples are infuriating on all ends, both examples need solutions that cater for all, not just some. Both examples are unfortunately unlikely to get resolved in this age of "extremes", where neither party do any concessions. I believe the gun and refugee discussions (or "Zwarte Piet discussion" in holland) are simply tools of the extreme left and extreme right to create larger discrepancies within the people of a nation. These discussions do not only feed hatred, but they actually help convince the people on both sides of the extremes that what they do is "just". Thus, making them more extreme in their cause, with possible escalation as an end. Fair, and I agree with you on most of this.
|
|
|
|