-
You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
I think 50% is a bit optimistic, but I certainly think a smaller percent change could be a short-term result. That being said, I also still believe criminals/evil people will continue to obtain firearms illegally, it’s what they do. Hardening of schools and addressing mental health should be priorities IMHO.
-
1
- Show all
I hear people say things like "we can't just do nothing".....Well I hate to break it to people but diving back into the same old gun control debate IS doing nothing. We know this because we have done it time and time and time again and we are never going to agree on this topic. So why can't we focus on things we CAN agree on. Better mental health, making schools harder targets, training adults on the warning signs to look for, having social media do better at looking for the warning signs, have celebrities that young kids look up to speak out against bullying and for the love of pete can the corporations that own our media just agree with each other to not try and gain ratings by making these shooters famous. (actually that's probably going to take all of us turning them off when they try it).
But sadly it's already started, I guess it's just inevitable....we will bang our heads against each others ideological brick walls and for some reason expect a different outcome. And of course the politicians in DC are more than willing to stoke the fire of that debate because they want us divided and arguing.
But sadly it's already started, I guess it's just inevitable....we will bang our heads against each others ideological brick walls and for some reason expect a different outcome. And of course the politicians in DC are more than willing to stoke the fire of that debate because they want us divided and arguing.
Last edited:
Maybe, but that doesn't seem to correlate well with the mass shooting data since usage peaked around 2016 and has stayed flat whereas mass shootings continued increasing after and then have fallen slightly in the last couple of years. Social media use also increased globally, but no other developed country saw this kind or increase.
Nevertheless, I'm 100% on board for more restrictions on social media for teens. Even outside of this conversation, it is a net harm that needs to be mitigated, especially for teenage girls. If placing more restrictions on social media gets you on board for some other things I mentioned, let's do it.
Nevertheless, I'm 100% on board for more restrictions on social media for teens. Even outside of this conversation, it is a net harm that needs to be mitigated, especially for teenage girls. If placing more restrictions on social media gets you on board for some other things I mentioned, let's do it.
I need to dig a little deeper on this issue. I'm not sure where Statista pulled those numbers from, but they're wildly inaccurate. There have already been over 200 mass shootings so far this year. Most are largely ignored due to where they occur.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/25/why-cant-america-stop-mass-shootings-gun-control
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/25/why-cant-america-stop-mass-shootings-gun-control
I don't think we actually agree on better mental health. The public mental health system has been almost completely shuttered and no one seems to have the appetite to fund it. Insurance companies often fight mental health reimbursement either directly or through their policies. If you want to fund those public options and force insurance companies to reimburse at higher rates for more services, let's figure out how to get that paid for. Let's also fund more prevention. I'm biased, but that is a "hub" issue that has knock on effects on a variety of outcomes.
-
1
- Show all
Seems to match these data where at least 3 people have to have been killed.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
I think I've figured it out. They're cherry-picking certain mass shootings while completely ignoring others.
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000524/mass-shootings-rare
Other researchers, like Mother Jones’ Mark Follman and the Harvard School of Public Health’s Amy P. Cohen, Deborah Azrael, and Matthew Miller use a more restrictive definition, excluding killings related to domestic violence, drugs, or gangs.
It seems that the numbers differ by source depending on how they define a mass shooting. Some define it as 4 or more people killed. Some define it as 3 or more people killed. Some define it as 4 or more people shot. The overall numbers differ greatly by definition.
The link above paints an interesting picture. It seems that the unadjusted number of mass shootings hasn't changed that much over the past few decades. (At least by their definition of the term.)
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000524/mass-shootings-rare
Other researchers, like Mother Jones’ Mark Follman and the Harvard School of Public Health’s Amy P. Cohen, Deborah Azrael, and Matthew Miller use a more restrictive definition, excluding killings related to domestic violence, drugs, or gangs.
It seems that the numbers differ by source depending on how they define a mass shooting. Some define it as 4 or more people killed. Some define it as 3 or more people killed. Some define it as 4 or more people shot. The overall numbers differ greatly by definition.
The link above paints an interesting picture. It seems that the unadjusted number of mass shootings hasn't changed that much over the past few decades. (At least by their definition of the term.)
Last edited:
Those definitions certainly imply different things. I'd guess most of us think of a mass shooting as one where several people die or at least those are the ones that we pay any real attention to. That seems to be what we're discussing here. Those other situations are worth attention, too, but I'm guessing they'll require different solutions.
Then why do some politicians use crime in big cities as a talking point? Chicago was mentioned earlier here and locally people point to Minneapolis as a place where getting mugged as something likely if you are on the streets there.
I'm not trying to make a point about gun violence. Suicide, homicide, or the tragedy we are talking about-its all bad and regardless of how anyone feels about gun control we all agree that something should be done to prevent it.
But 3 days ago there was a conservative talking point about how big cities have a gun problem and people are dying from it. We experience a major tragedy and the talking point changes to it's getting better and it's been getting better for decades? You just posted the article so I'm not calling you out personally but in general you can't say crime in cities is an issue that needs to be addressed now and turn around and say crime in cities is getting better.
I'm not trying to make a point about gun violence. Suicide, homicide, or the tragedy we are talking about-its all bad and regardless of how anyone feels about gun control we all agree that something should be done to prevent it.
But 3 days ago there was a conservative talking point about how big cities have a gun problem and people are dying from it. We experience a major tragedy and the talking point changes to it's getting better and it's been getting better for decades? You just posted the article so I'm not calling you out personally but in general you can't say crime in cities is an issue that needs to be addressed now and turn around and say crime in cities is getting better.
I've never really studied international mass shootings, but I've always heard that this issue is largely unique to the US. Even in other countries with high levels of civilian firearm ownership, our mass shooting numbers are much higher.
The chart I posted above shows that the overall number of mass shootings in the US are largely unchanged over the past few decades, but the number or high profile mass shootings like school shootings have been increasing. Why do you believe we're seeing this increase?
In my mind, the most logical reason is that these people want to gain fame as they check out of this life. Mass shootings and social media provide that opportunity. I could be wrong though. I don't have a real firm understanding of why people choose to commit these heinous acts.
The chart I posted above shows that the overall number of mass shootings in the US are largely unchanged over the past few decades, but the number or high profile mass shootings like school shootings have been increasing. Why do you believe we're seeing this increase?
In my mind, the most logical reason is that these people want to gain fame as they check out of this life. Mass shootings and social media provide that opportunity. I could be wrong though. I don't have a real firm understanding of why people choose to commit these heinous acts.
-
1
- Show all
But 33% of them involve AR's.
Totally hot take here. In no way am I saying we need to ban handguns or rifles and shotguns used for hunting. If you want personal protection or look forward to deer season I'm all about it. As a kid my preference was duck hunting but I spent plenty of time in a deer stand so this isn't someone wanting to ban guns.
The thing about an AR, it wouldn't have been banned in 1994 so it's not defined as an assault rifle. But we have a generation or two who grew up playing video games with cool weapons and it looks cool. Heck, when I was a kid bb guns looked like standard rifles. You pump you shoot and it was fun. A few years ago my former BIL and I were in a local sporting goods store and the bb guns we saw looked like assault rifles but they shot plastic bullets instead of lead or copper. I thought it was funny at the time because the guns looked way more lethal but were way less likely to shoot out an eye. But a generation of kids grew up shooting them because they looked cool and yesterday a kid who probably had one when he was 10 killed a bunch of 10 year olds with a gun he thought was cool.
Again I'm not a person that wants to ban guns but maybe we stop making this one. It really serves no purpose other than it looks cool. No one is going hunting with it and it's unreliable for self defense. But it is slick looking. If you own one privately that's fine. Stop making them and it becomes more valuable in your collection, but that also means you aren't likely to sell it to a kid who wants to do something stupid.
It doesn't solve the problem but it keeps kids with issues from getting their hands on one.
Totally hot take here. In no way am I saying we need to ban handguns or rifles and shotguns used for hunting. If you want personal protection or look forward to deer season I'm all about it. As a kid my preference was duck hunting but I spent plenty of time in a deer stand so this isn't someone wanting to ban guns.
The thing about an AR, it wouldn't have been banned in 1994 so it's not defined as an assault rifle. But we have a generation or two who grew up playing video games with cool weapons and it looks cool. Heck, when I was a kid bb guns looked like standard rifles. You pump you shoot and it was fun. A few years ago my former BIL and I were in a local sporting goods store and the bb guns we saw looked like assault rifles but they shot plastic bullets instead of lead or copper. I thought it was funny at the time because the guns looked way more lethal but were way less likely to shoot out an eye. But a generation of kids grew up shooting them because they looked cool and yesterday a kid who probably had one when he was 10 killed a bunch of 10 year olds with a gun he thought was cool.
Again I'm not a person that wants to ban guns but maybe we stop making this one. It really serves no purpose other than it looks cool. No one is going hunting with it and it's unreliable for self defense. But it is slick looking. If you own one privately that's fine. Stop making them and it becomes more valuable in your collection, but that also means you aren't likely to sell it to a kid who wants to do something stupid.
It doesn't solve the problem but it keeps kids with issues from getting their hands on one.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Right, especially for age limits. A high percentage maybe even the majority of mass shootings are done by males between age 18 and 20. Decades ago, our country found the will to raise the minimum drinking age from 18 to 21, due to the drunken carnage the under 21 age group was doing on the roads. Why not do the same for buying a gun?
Age 18 to 20 is when mental illness, like schizophrenia starts for some young males. Surely, society needs to find a way to better screen them for that mental illness.
Age 18 to 20 is when mental illness, like schizophrenia starts for some young males. Surely, society needs to find a way to better screen them for that mental illness.
That's a very difficult situation. At a bare minimum, your relative's name should be on a registry making sure they are not allowed to purchase a gun of any kind. The shooter in Texas was sent to a psychiatric facility by the school counselor but later released. That alone should have put him on the list for ineligibility to purchase a firearm. I had to wait a couple of weeks to purchase a handgun while the background check was processed. I am not really understanding how this kid could walk in the same day and buy all that ammo and two AK47's or AR15's or whatever he bought. That's major system failure on multiple levels. Understanding that you can't completely stop a deranged individual from doing harm, we need to do our best to take measures to fix this including a major review and tightening of the process to purchase a weapon but also a sincere examination of how on earth an individual gets to the mental state that he would kill his own grandmother and then decide to go to a school and slaughter a bunch of 7, 8 and 9 year old kids. That's a sick mental state beyond John Wayne Gacy. I'm ready to have a conversation about how we can tighten the gun buying process but that alone isn't enough. Why is it taboo to examine and admit that video games like "Dead by Daylight" (which this guy played and lost just prior to the massacre) should not be allowed to exist. Movies that glorify this type of behavior should not be made or promoted. Why does everyone kneejerk to taking guns away from law abiding citizens but refuse to even entertain a discussion about the ways we are brainwashing and programming the minds of these mass shooting perpetrators. If we really care about these murdered kids we need to look at all the reasons that lead to these atrocities.
Last edited:
-
2
- Show all
Maybe you're right but it's at least a debate we haven't had multiple times like gun control. We all know every argument that both sides are going to use on that one. Maybe a different debate to discover if and where common ground might be found will be beneficial.
Plus I actually think mental health is by far the most important discussion to have about this. I doubt that the mere availability of guns is the thing that is breaking these kids mentally. Regardless of anything we do or don't do about guns, we need to find out what is causing this and address it. Because guns aren't the only things that can be used to cause mass casualties.
Plus I actually think mental health is by far the most important discussion to have about this. I doubt that the mere availability of guns is the thing that is breaking these kids mentally. Regardless of anything we do or don't do about guns, we need to find out what is causing this and address it. Because guns aren't the only things that can be used to cause mass casualties.