School shooting Florida

[alfaniner]

I'm moved by the Marches for Our Lives worldwide today.

One thing I notice in all the coverage is that you don't see a single red MAGA cap.

 

[William Parcher]

Are there any protest signs directed at the mentally ill? Something like, "Hey lunatics, stop killing us!" Aimed at future Cruzs.

 

[Nessie]

All excellent ideas all compelling arguments

Unfortunately, because these measures would not 100% guarantee an end to ALL gun violence, the 2A "muh guns" crowd will fall back to their default position.... "if it doesn't fix everything, do nothing" a.k.a. the perfect solution fallacy.

They are all the reason why the rest of the western world does not have the same problems, so yes they do work.

The next issue is how to persuade those opposed to such reforms to accept them?

 

[CaptainHowdy]

I'm moved by the Marches for Our Lives worldwide today.

One thing I notice in all the coverage is that you don't see a single red MAGA cap.

Look for me. I'll be wearing a pussy hat and carrying a "No Machine Guns" sign.

 

[bruto]

The police are not above capricious arrest.

No, but that is not to say that any arrest is capricious.

 

[sadhatter]

I'm moved by the Marches for Our Lives worldwide today.

One thing I notice in all the coverage is that you don't see a single red MAGA cap.

Were you just as moved when kids did the same thing after columbine?

And by just as moved I mean saying how sensitive you ate for a couple months then dropping it for the new outrage.

 

[varwoche]

Are there any protest signs directed at the mentally ill? Something like, "Hey lunatics, stop killing us!" Aimed at future Cruzs.

As you've been informed, edgy comedy is not your strong suit.

 

[BobTheCoward]

No, but that is not to say that any arrest is capricious.

Which is why I don't think we should presume anything about any arrest, ever.

 

[johnny karate]

Look for me. I'll be wearing a pussy hat and carrying a "No Machine Guns" sign.

The hat will be made of tinfoil, no doubt.

 

[bruto]

Which is why I don't think we should presume anything about any arrest, ever.

Your comment appears as it if does, appearing to ignore the published accounts of what the arrest was made for, which includes continued and defiant trespassing at the school where a notorious mass murder occurred, and lionizing the brother who performed it. Many people have surmised that some of the fault for this shooting lies in the inadequate response to the signs of craziness that were visible before the shooting. Many might even consider that any positive response to the shooting is crazy enough to raise some alarm.

 

[johnny karate]

Were you just as moved when kids did the same thing after columbine?

And by just as moved I mean saying how sensitive you ate for a couple months then dropping it for the new outrage.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume there’s a sick burn in there somewhere amid the typos and mangled grammar. But honestly, I’m not too sure what it’s supposed to be.

 

[alfaniner]

Were you just as moved [when kids did the same thing] after columbine?

And by just as moved I mean saying how sensitive you ate for a couple months then dropping it for the new outrage.

Yes.

And it's the same outrage. Multiplied by

Newtown
Sandy Hook
Charleston
Orlando
Parkland

And others to numerous to remember by location.

 

[jimbob]

Were you just as moved when kids did the same thing after columbine?

And by just as moved I mean saying how sensitive you ate for a couple months then dropping it for the new outrage.

I can't remember the kids at Colombine organising marches.


Anyway what is your point?

 

[ServiceSoon]

It doesn't purport to be a news article. It is clearly labeled "Opinions." The writer makes a series of specific, relatively narrow proposals, based on cited research. What do you see as the column's flaws? "Second Amendment, Amen!" is not an adequate response.

Perhaps it would be better categorized as an opinion piece, from an organization that self identifies as a newspaper whom reports news. Hmm...

The opening sentence of the opinion piece from the news organization is a strawman; "For far too long, those who oppose gun reforms have said that nothing can be done to stem the violence." It presents an extreme viewpoint that very few of those who oppose gun reform believe.

I didn't read the entire article. I stopped after the author suggested measures that have proven ineffective in solving the problem they are trying to curtail. The cited research for the first narrow suggestion conflicts with the authors recommendation.

 

[ServiceSoon]

The NRA is vociferously opposed to any research on gun violence being done... their lackeys in US Federal and State Governments support that position. We all know why that is... its because they don't want the truth coming out... they have plenty they want suppressed from pubic view.

An informed public is a powerful public

Are you upset that the NRA opposes research or that the research from various sources, from different countries do not currently support your position? The epidemiology and pathology of homicides is the area of research that we should be focusing on.

The reduction of homicides or suicides has of yet been strongly correlated to restrictions of firearms.

There is 'significant evidence' that media reports of mass shootings (And I would argue that media reports of Marches on Washington stemming from concerns of mass shootings) increase the likelihood of similar events reoccurring in the future. Source.

Perhaps we should implement restrictions on the first amendment of media organizations? The science says that such a law would reduce the amount of homicides. I can't imagine you taking issue with a reasonable law that would save lives; unless you take the position that corporations are people?

 

[Kestrel]

I can't remember the kids at Colombine organising marches.

There was a large protest in Denver shortly after Columbine that was organized by parents who lost children in the massacre. The march in Denver today had a much larger crowd.

 

[smartcooky]

Are you upset that the NRA opposes research...

Yes. The NRA should have absolutely no say whatsoever on what research should be allowed not allowed. They only object because they are afraid that the results of such research will not be favorable to their position.

I say, allow the research to be done... only those with something to hide or who are afraid the results won't favour them, are opposed to research.

or that the research from various sources, from different countries do not currently support your position? The epidemiology and pathology of homicides is the area of research that we should be focusing on.

Research and examples show that ease of firearms access and lack of firearms control directly correlates with the level of gun crime and violence. The USA is an outlier in ease of access, an outlier in lack of gun control and an outlier on the level of gun violence. It can easily be shown (in fact, it has been repeatedly shows on this forum) that, almost without exception, every country that has strict gun control and more difficult access to firearms have lower levels of gun violence.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Yes. The NRA should have absolutely no say whatsoever on what research should be allowed not allowed. They only object because they are afraid that the results of such research will not be favorable to their position.

I say, allow the research to be done... only those with something to hide or who are afraid the results won't favour them, are opposed to research.

Research and examples show that ease of firearms access and lack of firearms control directly correlates with the level of gun crime and violence. The USA is an outlier in ease of access, an outlier in lack of gun control and an outlier on the level of gun violence. It can easily be shown (in fact, it has been repeatedly shows on this forum) that, almost without exception, every country that has strict gun control and more difficult access to firearms have lower levels of gun violence.

I agree that global research has shown that restricting access to firearms directly correlates with the reduction of homicides committed with firearms.

What research has tried to correlate, and failed to do multiple times, is gain any level of certainty that restricting access to firearms reduces the amount of homicides regardless of method. Claiming that gun control saves lives is factually incorrect. It's more wishful thinking than based on a pragmatic view of reality.

What if I told you that the best way to reduce the amount of automotive deaths was to ban red cars. Ten years after implementation I'd present you with a graph that showed deaths by people driving red cars decreased substantially! You would call that rubbish and consider me disingenuous because you know that those deaths simply shifted to a different color vehicle. No lives were saved. That analogy directly coincides with the argument that restricting access to firearms saves lives. No, it doesn't, it shifts the instrument that was used to kill.

There has already been plenty of research from public and private entities across different cultures with dis/similar societal challenges that were unable to establish evidence that restricting access to firearms saves lives. Continuing to study that hypothesis is a waste of time and causes more lives to be lost. You can thank the NRA for saving tax payers' millions on useless research.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

The hat will be made of tinfoil, no doubt.

Tinfoil hats will not protect you from conspiratard theories like 'populist movements organically arise and sweep across the nation and around the world in a few days without any planning or organizational structure' or 'the Holocaust causes autism'. Only familiarity with the way the world works can do that.

 

[smartcooky]

I agree that global research has shown that restricting access to firearms directly correlates with the reduction of homicides committed with firearms.

Good

What research has tried to correlate, and failed to do multiple times, is gain any level of certainty that restricting access to firearms reduces the amount of homicides regardless of method. Claiming that gun control saves lives is factually incorrect. It's more wishful thinking than based on a pragmatic view of reality.

I disagree.

You are trying to claim that people who would have killed with firearms but were unable to do so due to no access, would simply kill with some other weapon. IMO, this is completely untrue, but for argument's sake, lets try running with that.

If your claim is correct, it would mean that in countries other than the US (those with actual gun control and a lower rate of firearms ownership) the overall murder rate (say, per 100,000) would be the same as the US, and the rate of firearms murders will be much lower, so the rate of murders with other weapons would be much higher to make up the difference. This is simply untrue.

Additionally, I wonder how many people the Las Vegas spree-shooter would have killed and wounded using a knife, or a baseball bat from his hotel room. I wonder now many he would have killed if he was only able to get single shot, bolt action rifles with a maximum of 10 round per magazines.

What if I told you that the best way to reduce the amount of automotive deaths was to ban red cars.

I'd say you were making a strawman argument. A red car is still a car, and other than colour, it is exactly the same as any other car

A firearm is NOT the same as a knife or a weapon other than a firearm

Your comparison is just nonsense.