Current Events > Does the United States have a serious problem with mass shootings?

(+) Yeah! (+)

joe40001 posted...

Propose a concrete policy solution that stands a better chance at reducing mass shootings.

Reopen all the loonybins we closed in the 60s and 70s.
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20001227/death-of-mental-asylum

joe40001 posted...

Malcrasternus posted...

joe40001 posted...

Malcrasternus posted...

joe40001 posted...

But mitigating the problem is easier than "preventing all homicidal thoughts ever", universal background checks would definitely help the problem and are far from absurd to do.

Do you even know what a UBC is? How do you think it works right now?

I know that most experts are for it, suggesting that it would make a real difference in gun violence and like 90% of the population is too.

So, you don't, and you're just following the numbers instead of looking into the details. Kinda like when people see the number 40k gun deaths per year and think its 40,000 people dying from other people shooting them.

The only way to make a UBC work is to create a registry. And as time and time again has shown, a registry just makes it easier for confiscation. Couple it with red flag laws where literally anyone can claim a law abiding gun owner has endangered/threatened them, and without due process have their guns taken away, even if the claim is false.

It's a horrible system, and quite honestly I'm tired of people bringing it up like it's some flawless, common sense law that gun owners don't like because muh 2nd amendment.

You want real change in America, fund mental health and screening. We run commercials for pills like we do cars and candy. Moreover, make it beneficial for people to learn gun safety and handling. It's pretty fucking obvious how to handle one, but at the same time we every so often see someone on the road where we wonder how they ever got a license.

And if you want gang related shootings to drop, why don't we vote in people that truly care about getting people what they need, as opposed to now where those groups that need them the most are largely abandoned.

It feels like you want to find excuses why it will fail rather than ways to make things work. Universal background checks have a lot of support from many smart well informed people and you are just doing this "time and time again", "literally anybody", all these broad as fuck strokes that amount to little more than a child crossing their arms and going "nuh-uh".

Propose a concrete policy solution that stands a better chance at reducing mass shootings. If you don't have a better one, then support this one, if you aren't going to support this one or offer a better one then just fucking own the fact that you are a-ok with these mass shootings to keep happening.

I for one, will side with the 90+% of the country who wants to see them stop or be significantly reduced.

The second half of my post, which you conveniently ignored, would do far more good than any asinine gun law you think is a good idea because "everyone agrees with it." There's no magic cure all, like you want there to be. This is a multi-faceted issue that needs a multiple step approach, likely in congress and state level to address. You're making it more and more clear the kind of debate you want to have, which is to say, you don't.
---

Malcrasternus posted...

The second half of my post, which you conveniently ignored, would do far more good than any asinine gun law you think is a good idea because "everyone agrees with it." There's no magic cure all, like you want there to be. This is a multi-faceted issue that needs a multiple step approach, likely in congress and state level to address. You're making it more and more clear the kind of debate you want to have, which is to say, you don't.

I just don't want to indulge the "it's too hard to fix so don't even try" mentality that it sounded like you were arguing.

I am curious do you truly believe universal background checks as they are commonly defined as a policy would not be effective as a means of reducing mass shootings?

Also sure other forms of screening could likely help too, no need to say we can't do one positive thing because we are doing another one.
---

joe40001 posted...

I just don't want to indulge the "it's too hard to fix so don't even try" mentality that it sounded like you were arguing.

I'm actually suggesting the opposite. UBC is the easy way out, when you look at it broadly. Providing help to those that need it is going to be very difficult; not only in carrying through with it, but convincing the public that addressing the mental/socioeconomic issues would far more benefit than trying to restrict a piece of metal.

There's hundreds of gun laws in place already. Why don't we try addressing the urge to commit violence in the first place?
---

Malcrasternus posted...

joe40001 posted...

I just don't want to indulge the "it's too hard to fix so don't even try" mentality that it sounded like you were arguing.

I'm actually suggesting the opposite. UBC is the easy way out, when you look at it broadly. Providing help to those that need it is going to be very difficult; not only in carrying through with it, but convincing the public that addressing the mental/socioeconomic issues would far more benefit than trying to restrict a piece of metal.

There's hundreds of gun laws in place already. Why don't we try addressing the urge to commit violence in the first place?

I'd be happy to do whatever it takes, but considering just how petulant people get over the idea of doing anything it seems like the "easy" options are the only ones that stand a chance of actually getting implemented.

Fixing mental health issues is something I'm down with, I'm simply concerned people will use the complexity of such a task as a means of slowing or obstructing the process entirely.
---

joe40001 posted...

Fixing mental health issues is something I'm down with, I'm simply concerned people will use the complexity of such a task as a means of slowing or obstructing the process entirely.

That's what bothers me too. So many people just roll their eyes when it's suggested though, even here.
---

Malcrasternus posted...

joe40001 posted...

Fixing mental health issues is something I'm down with, I'm simply concerned people will use the complexity of such a task as a means of slowing or obstructing the process entirely.

That's what bothers me too. So many people just roll their eyes when it's suggested though, even here.

Fair enough. I'm sorry I was harsh with you. I misinterpreted your argument. Not going to lie, I get so upset with people who have given up or don't want to immediately implement at least some attempt at fixing the problem that I sometimes mistakenly misread some people into that camp who are not. That's my mistake.
---

No, I get you man. These are horrible, disgusting tragedies that we really need to find a truly effective answer to.
---

Darmik posted...

The big mass shootings don't even stay in the public discourse or media for as long as they used to.

A guy massacred close to 60 people in Las Vegas and it's barely brought up anymore.

Mass shootings are over saturating themselves in the news cycle, hopefully making the idea of doing it for fame slightly less intriguing.
---

joe40001 posted...

am curious do you truly believe universal background checks as they are commonly defined as a policy would not be effective as a means of reducing mass shootings?

No. they are largely pointless and only really effect straw purchases of which it wouldnt effect individuals who already go through the background check system. the only way that a UBC would even work how it was intended is if you also forced registration of every firearm that could then be linked back to a seller (it would not stop the person who currently holds the firearm and did their deed with) which is blatantly unconstitutional. almost ALL mass shooters and suicides tend to already get their guns legally due to no prior criminal records, or they steel theirs (like from parents) or the system fucks up and lets them through (which isnt going to be solved by adding even more red tape that the system can get convoluted on). in terms of gang violence there was a study on prisoners and it turns out only something like 3% of them got their guns through straw purchases. most got theirs from stealing or sold by people who stole and would have never gone through the system anyway.

I find it interesting when people say that they're rare and don't effect you.

I don't know many people here personally but even I know about the guy who posted here that survived the shooting in the cinema. In the garlic festival topic there are posters who live close by. I'm pretty sure one of the conservative posters here was working in Vegas when that shooting happened.

Being shot and killed is not the only way to be impacted by mass shootings.
---

scar the 1 posted...

HiddenRoar posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Yes, no other country with guns has it occur at levels even close to ours. We have more each year than the rest of the world combined in like, the last decade. There's a few reasons it's an issue that only seems to affect Americana. Reasons I'd get modded for explaining.

A Boko Haram attack/raid has more of a death toll (from guns) in one instance than the average death toll in U.S. (mass) shootings over several months.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cameroon-security/boko-haram-attack-on-cameroon-island-kills-24-idUSKCN1TD289

The assailants arrived in boats and attacked the islands eight military outposts, Darak mayor Ali Ramat told Reuters.

Comparing an actual act of war to school shootings. Of course a battle would have a higher death toll. The topic is about school shootings, though. Proclaiming that actual battles have higher death tolls than mass shootings seems somehow like you're trivializing mass shootings.

I cited the most recent (that I could find) mass shooting attack by the group.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/boko-haram-abducted-1000-children-killed-2000-teachers/story?id=54442518

But here you go, since you wanted school shootings.

Trigg3rH4ppy posted...

Darmik posted...

The big mass shootings don't even stay in the public discourse or media for as long as they used to.

A guy massacred close to 60 people in Las Vegas and it's barely brought up anymore.

Mass shootings are over saturating themselves in the news cycle, hopefully making the idea of doing it for fame slightly less intriguing.

It was never about fame, most shooters were people who just wanted to hurt others who they felt had slighted them. Girls who turned them down, classmates, teachers, etc.

Bullets cost 1000 dollars each and making your own bullets is a mandatory 5 years in prison no more mass shootings

---

HiddenRoar posted...

scar the 1 posted...

HiddenRoar posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Yes, no other country with guns has it occur at levels even close to ours. We have more each year than the rest of the world combined in like, the last decade. There's a few reasons it's an issue that only seems to affect Americana. Reasons I'd get modded for explaining.

A Boko Haram attack/raid has more of a death toll (from guns) in one instance than the average death toll in U.S. (mass) shootings over several months.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cameroon-security/boko-haram-attack-on-cameroon-island-kills-24-idUSKCN1TD289

The assailants arrived in boats and attacked the islands eight military outposts, Darak mayor Ali Ramat told Reuters.

Comparing an actual act of war to school shootings. Of course a battle would have a higher death toll. The topic is about school shootings, though. Proclaiming that actual battles have higher death tolls than mass shootings seems somehow like you're trivializing mass shootings.

I cited the most recent (that I could find) mass shooting attack by the group.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/boko-haram-abducted-1000-children-killed-2000-teachers/story?id=54442518

But here you go, since you wanted school shootings.

Still a war crime and not able to be considered intellectual honest to say the two are comparable

CADE FOSTER posted...

Bullets cost 1000 dollars each and making your own bullets is a mandatory 5 years in prison no more mass shootings

Can't ban people from making them

But could relate it with a $50,000 annual license fee and each bullet made comes with a $800 cost, anyone who doesn't have a license faces severe charges both civil and criminal, even more if there's the intent to sell. Buying being criminal conspiracy to murder, the same way sex workers with a condom in their purse had it used as proof of intent to prostitute.

joe40001 posted...

TheMikh posted...

There are two countries where it is legal to advertise pharmaceuticals on television, and one of those countries also has the highest percentage of psychotropic drug users.

Can you guess which one it is?

What does this have to do with shootings?

The correlation with spree shooters is too strong to be ignored.
---