|
zapplez posted:So basically, mental health is the core problem with mass shootings and we need to do more to improve mental health care access to all people. I don't think that's a good characterization, but clearly there is a relationship. The article goes into some of the nuance here and I recommend reading it in it's entirety. A lot of mass shootings are ideologically motivated. In particular Islamic extremism and white nationalism has inspired a large number. Suicide is also heavily influenced by culture. I forget if it was you or someone else, but there was an article posted in this thread about the change in frequency of hangings in Australia. The authors speculated that this change was caused by a change in the stigma around death by hanging that occurred after hanging was banned as an execution method for criminals. There's a lot of mass shootings that cannot be prevented with these kinds of red flag laws, because the perpetrators are driven by some other motivation or psychology. Mass shootings, homicide, and suicide are complex phenomena with multiple causes. There will never be one single quick fix that can solve these problems -- they have to be attacked from every angle. Red flag laws can be seen as an emergency mental health intervention. Ideally they should also be paired with preventative care as well, so we can catch these cases before they become immanent threats. There's a few different directions from which we need to tackle problems of suicide and homicide. We can attack the cultural roots: how socially acceptable is suicide? What is the stigma of domestic violence? Then we can also address the psychology/motivation: Can we reduce anti-social behavior through mental health treatment? If someone wants to commit an assault for revenge over a personal dispute, do they expect to get away with it? We also want to limit opportunity: if you want a gun to commit a crime, how easily can you get it? If you're going to commit suicide, can you just jump off a bridge, or will there be a safety net and rail? Then we can try to mitigate cases where there's an immanent threat: that means taking guns from known domestic abusers, or people expressing suicidal thoughts. Lastly we also want to reduce the deadliness of incidents when they occur. That means putting up bollards to prevent vehicular attacks in public spaces. Armed security at vulnerable locations. Limiting the deadliness of privately owned firearms. There's no reason to limit ourselves. We need to attack the problems from all directions. I admit zapplez, it sometimes sounds like you use mental healthcare as an excuse for not taking other actions we can reasonably predict will reduce homicides. But of course better mental healthcare doesn't mean we can't take other reasonable measures, and when you imply that, it makes you come across as disingenuous. America is a uniquely violent nation compared to peers of the same income level. Reducing that violence is obviously going to require multiple changes.
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
we should just ban all the guns imo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:we should just ban all the guns imo. Its worked in countries like France.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
zapplez posted:Its worked in countries like France. is this meant to be ironic? France has a homicide rate 1/3 as high as the United States edit wait, don't tell me: are you saying that because France has had mass shootings despite more strict gun control than the United States, that gun control can't reduce mass shooting frequency?  do you really not see the flaw in this argument?
Squalid fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Aug 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
zapplez posted:So basically, mental health is the core problem with mass shootings and we need to do more to improve mental health care access to all people. 1) mentally ill people 2) handguns and AR-15s Squalid posted:do you really not see the flaw in this argument?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:they simply don’t care. nothing comes between them and their hobby; gently caress the consequences. The thing is, I kind of agree that high firearm prevalence is not the primary cause of America's high homicide rate. This issue is complicated -- there's a lot of other factors too. However I really don't like how zapplez seems to try and use that to argue that changes to gun regulation would not effect violence rates. The reality is that we need to do a lot of things to solve these problems -- and we can do them at the same time. Better mental healthcare can be implemented at the same time as policies that reduce gun prevalence. There is no conflict in these proposals. One issue that is also really important is we need minority communities to be able to trust the police, and work with them. If someone is beating their girlfriend up, it's really good if people from the community can report that before the domestic violence turns into a homicide. However when issues of racism and culture means that people don't make those calls, when nobody asks for help, there might be very little we can do to prevent these tragedies. I feel like it's hard to talk about these factors in some progressive circles, where opposition to police is seen as an inherent good. but its like. . . this is our tool for protecting communities. If it's not working now, we need to actually think about how to fix it. When we actually look at the statistics, its not police who are doing most of the killing of young black men. It's other people from their community, and usually its because of dumb personal bullshit that could have been prevented if anyone cared to try or if the community wasn't so heavily armed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 03:28
|
|
|
Squalid posted:The thing is, I kind of agree that high firearm prevalence is not the primary cause of America's high homicide rate. This issue is complicated -- there's a lot of other factors too. However I really don't like how zapplez seems to try and use that to argue that changes to gun regulation would not effect violence rates. For the record its not my point that gun regulation won't change anything.I just don't think its the perfect long term solution if our goal is zero senseless deaths in mass casualty incidents. We have seen in practice already, the same profile of people who would shoot up a mall have now switched to just ramming crowds of people with cars if they can't get access to guns. So my point is, 25 years from now, even if we had the perfect gun control or even disarmament, you would have the same angry/depressed young men committing these mass casualty incidents, still killing hundreds of people a year, but just maybe at a slower clip than with firearms. So in 2050 we will have to start tackling the core issue of mental health that causes the men to want to act out this way. So why not work on the cause first. We aren't trying to ban cars because some people will misuse them and drive drunk. We try to educate people not to drink and drive and offer help to alcoholics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 11:45
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:which of the following does the united states of america have more of per capita than any other nation: 3)socially isolated young men that can get easily radicalized by watching other mass shooters on CNN and spend most of their time on 4chan/8chan watching others post about other shooters as heros TenementFunster posted:they simply don’t care. nothing comes between them and their hobby; gently caress the consequences. And just so all the cards are on the table. My views have nothing to do with a 'hobby'. I don't gun collect. I dont target shoot. I dont do AR-15 builds with gizmos and gadgets. I have two guns and both are literally for varmint control on a farm. I am not a hobbyist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 11:48
|
|
|
zapplez posted:For the record its not my point that gun regulation won't change anything.I just don't think its the perfect long term solution if our goal is zero senseless deaths in mass casualty incidents. We have seen in practice already, the same profile of people who would shoot up a mall have now switched to just ramming crowds of people with cars if they can't get access to guns. okay, so this seems like a major problem with your thinking. You need to completely discard the idea that there are perfect solutions. Honestly, you should also do away with the dream of achieving zero violent deaths, as that is not realistic. I also don't understand why you keep framing things like mental healthcare as mutually exclusive with gun control regulations, when obviously could apply these policies at the same time. In the case of red flag laws, its not even clear to me if that is gun control or mental health regulation, this distinction is not even meaningful. Alright, actually i think I do understand why you use that framing, you don't want gun control for reasons besides how it would effect violent deaths. These aren't the kinds of problems you eliminate. In the real world, we manage these problems. There's no one quick fix to homicide. Instead, we need to apply many small changes we can make, that address one single facet of the problem. Each will make a small difference, but the accumulated effect may be large. Imagining world without cares is very difficult, it would mean totally reshaping the social and physical infrastructure of the United States. By contrast, an America without handguns would be virtually unchanged. If cars disappeared overnight the economy would virtually shutdown. If handguns were gone, everything would continue as it had before, it would just be a bit less likely that people would get shot. I am sympathetic to you though and other people who use guns for practical work reasons. I think a lot of gun control advocates ignore the practical value of firearms. I think though that it's possible to reform gun regulation in a way that doesn't interfere with people like you. Unfortunately, the need for firearms in an agricultural context almost certainly causes rural people to suffer higher rates of suicide than they would with fewer guns. To some extent, we have to be able to consider these kinds of trade offs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
zapplez posted:3)socially isolated young men that can get easily radicalized by watching other mass shooters on CNN and spend most of their time on 4chan/8chan watching others post about other shooters as heros they don't commit most of the gun violence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 19:35
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:they don't commit most of the gun violence. But the media said
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
Isn’t it accurate that many mass shooters aren’t mentally ill just literally believe that what they’re doing is legitimately righteous?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Isn’t it accurate that many mass shooters aren’t mentally ill just literally believe that what they’re doing is legitimately righteous? less than a quarter are mentally ill and somewhere south of 10 percent were psychotic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Isn’t it accurate that many mass shooters aren’t mentally ill just literally believe that what they’re doing is legitimately righteous? People who believe that shooting up a bunch of random people is "legitimately righteous" have something wrong with their minds Groovelord Neato posted:they don't commit most of the gun violence. As a country we're way more concerned with random gun violence that affects not-poor people in areas of not-poorness than we are nonrandom gun violence (mostly people shooting their spouses), suicide, the gun violence that occurs in poor neighborhoods between poor people, and the gun violence perpetuated by the police This is because people incorrectly judge themselves to be most at risk of the first item, and also find the first item to be the least "understandable" and we deeply fear that which we can't understand So basically, middle class white people think they can just make good choices and not wind up killed by gangs, their spouse, the cops, or have a suicide in their families; but they can't make "smart choices" about the random acts of violence that take place in a theater or at a festival or especially at their kids' school, so that's the thing that is getting the most attention Policymakers react to what their constituents demand, when they're able to do so without cutting off their corporate and wealthy individual funders. If we want to demand an end to the crisis of gun suicide we need to somehow make that be the thing white surburbans are most scared of, but people aren't rational and don't just get a gut fear about things based on their statistical likelihoods, which is the same reason people are scared of flying but are happy to drive a daily commute for example We can decry and wail and moan about this tendency, or, we can attempt to affect change and save lives by going for the thing that is most likely to be politically feasible. Right now there's maybe an opportunity for gun control focused on the kinds of weapons and magazines used in mass shootings. Right now there is little or no chance of a nationwide ban on private ownership of hand guns, so we're not going to be able to go after the suicide rate from that angle. And right now if there is an opportunity to improve health care including mental health care for everyone and especially for the uninsured, we should do it regardless of whether that affects the suicide or murder rates because the death rate from heart disease and cancer and diabetes etc. are far far higher than gun deaths and so we can make a huge difference there anyway So in conclusion we should try to get mass murder guns controlled because that's within reach right now, and we should try to get red flag laws improved/universal because that's also within reach right now, and we can plan for some future in which we ban all semi-autos or ban all handguns or something but let's not pretend that future is within reach right now It is lovely and counterproductive to say "well the most important thing we could do is X, so if we're not gonna do that, then shut up with your less effective Y suggestions" because Y is something we could possibly achieve now and it could make a difference where as X is going to have to be a longer-term goal Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Aug 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
you're preaching to the choir, i want them all banned (thanks to scalia and co. lying about what the second amendment means we won't ban the type we need to ban most). i understand that the mass shootings are the only way we'd ever get effective control since dunblane did it in the uk and port arthur did it in australia. i naively thought sandy hook was going to be our dunblane.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
The biggest red flag is being a Republican voter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:they don't commit most of the gun violence. Yeah, I was talking about risk factors for mass shooters. Not gun crime in general which is a whole different issue on how to tackle that. Squalid posted:okay, so this seems like a major problem with your thinking. You need to completely discard the idea that there are perfect solutions. Honestly, you should also do away with the dream of achieving zero violent deaths, as that is not realistic. I also don't understand why you keep framing things like mental healthcare as mutually exclusive with gun control regulations, when obviously could apply these policies at the same time. In the case of red flag laws, its not even clear to me if that is gun control or mental health regulation, this distinction is not even meaningful. Alright, actually i think I do understand why you use that framing, you don't want gun control for reasons besides how it would effect violent deaths. I think you are assuming a fuckton about my thinking, and just getting red hot and distracted that I am saying the core issue is mental health (when it comes to mass shooters). I think if you asked me point by point what concessions would be willing to do everything you want (short of literal, total disarmament). My core belief remains (on the top of mass shooters and random acts of violence designed for notoriety / to inflict terror) is that people will keep doing them even if we totally isolate access to firearms. We've already seen it happen that way in Canada and France. I never said we can't do both. I just don't want JUST gun control measures for 20 years till we realize we need to work on mental health and media contagion and internet etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 01:13
|
|
|
zapplez posted:Yeah, I was talking about risk factors for mass shooters. Not gun crime in general which is a whole different issue on how to tackle that. alright fair enough. I still find the way you keep talking about absolutes very strange. Pointing out that people would keep trying to commit mass murder even if they didn't have guns seems kind of like pointing out that people will continue to have heart attacks even as we write people statin prescriptions. . . It might be true, but I'm really straining to see what conclusions to draw from it. Leperflesh posted:Policymakers react to what their constituents demand, when they're able to do so without cutting off their corporate and wealthy individual funders. If we want to demand an end to the crisis of gun suicide we need to somehow make that be the thing white surburbans are most scared of, but people aren't rational and don't just get a gut fear about things based on their statistical likelihoods, which is the same reason people are scared of flying but are happy to drive a daily commute for example There's no way around the fact that mass shootings are what's creating the energy for gun control right now. The trick is how can we channel that energy in the most useful direction. I was kind of lying earlier when I said we can just do everything at once. In fact, we are constrained by limited energy, limited money for lobbying, and limited legislator time to write and pass proposals. So its important that when we pick battles, we should choose those which have the most power to make a meaningful difference. Realistically, if we banned high capacity magazines for long rifles nationwide, how many lives could we expect to save? Some, certainly, but I'm skeptical such an intervention would have much real power. What's needed is a bit of political jujitsu. Red flag laws can be sold to the public as a way to fight mass shooters. However if the research in that fivethirtyeight article is right, by far the biggest effect will be in reducing normal suicides. We need to identify the most powerful interventions, those that can make a real difference in homicide rates, and once we've identified them then we work to connect it in the public's imagination to mass shooting prevention. Hieronymous Alloy's post about the link between suicide and mass shootings really caught my attention, because by connecting the two we can make a more powerful argument for policy that can reduce suicides. What I keep thinking about is firearm prevalence, which is the variable most associated with firearm deaths, and how to argue for policy that will reduce it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 04:02
|
|
|
zapplez posted:For the record its not my point that gun regulation won't change anything.I just don't think its the perfect long term solution if our goal is zero senseless deaths in mass casualty incidents. We have seen in practice already, the same profile of people who would shoot up a mall have now switched to just ramming crowds of people with cars if they can't get access to guns. the goal is fewer, because a cheap semiautomatic rifle and a bunch of high capacity magazines sure looks to be the best way to do senseless deaths! zapplez posted:3)socially isolated young men that can get easily radicalized by watching other mass shooters on CNN and spend most of their time on 4chan/8chan watching others post about other shooters as heros Groovelord Neato posted:i naively thought sandy hook was going to be our dunblane. TenementFunster fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Aug 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 02:55
|
|
|
To be fair, nobody liked you before Sandy Hook either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 03:46
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:To be fair, nobody liked you before Sandy Hook either. it's representative of Gun Culture as a whole since forever TenementFunster fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Aug 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 05:46
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:nobody is expecting the goal to be “zero senseless deaths in mass casualty incidents.” why would you think that, other than to set up any attempt at reducing deaths for failure? Isn't that the real goal of everyone? I dont care if my sister dies in a shooting from a incel or dies by an incel driving a car running over people. The end goal is the stopping of random violence. So yeah, I am going to keep saying doing gun control on its own isnt the solution to getting rid of this problem. Its going to take even more work on the mental health funding / societal / media factors. I am not saying not to do gun control, I am just saying Its not going to do enough on its own to prevent the homicidal fantasy work of these sick fucks. TenementFunster posted:don’t forget judas priest and duke nukem. There are no studies that say listening to heavy metal makes you do mass shootings. We already have the studies that show watching the news and media contagion cause more mass shootings. I am talking from science. The media / the internet are a big part of the problem as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:come to think of it, i had been banned from TFR for like 4 years by the time sandy hook happened, so yeah, the hivemind has been hostile to Other Opinions for awhile. chuds welcome, though! lol! Was that one desk culture?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 03:36
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:To be fair, nobody liked you before Sandy Hook either. TF rules tbqh zapplez posted:Isn't that the real goal of everyone? I dont care if my sister dies in a shooting from a incel or dies by an incel driving a car running over people. The end goal is the stopping of random violence. So yeah, I am going to keep saying doing gun control on its own isnt the solution to getting rid of this problem. Its going to take even more work on the mental health funding / societal / media factors. I am not saying not to do gun control, I am just saying Its not going to do enough on its own to prevent the homicidal fantasy work of these sick fucks. What kind of specific policies do you think should be implemented regarding mental health care? It's not an area I'm very familiar with. Although on suicides I remember one suggestion for reducing "contagion" was for newspapers and the news not to say it in the lede when celebrities kill themselves, or even to just not mention it at all. Implementing that kind of standard probably has to be done voluntarily. When it comes to mass shootings, I could see the same tactic possibly making an impact. Now I don't know how you can cover a mass shooting with mentioning that it was a shooting, but it seems like it could plausibly have an effect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 04:19
|
|
|
zapplez posted:Isn't that the real goal of everyone? I dont care if my sister dies in a shooting from a incel or dies by an incel driving a car running over people. The end goal is the stopping of random violence. So yeah, I am going to keep saying doing gun control on its own isnt the solution to getting rid of this problem. Its going to take even more work on the mental health funding / societal / media factors. I am not saying not to do gun control, I am just saying Its not going to do enough on its own to prevent the homicidal fantasy work of these sick fucks. anyway, your sister is a lot less likely to die if attacked by an incel with a van vs. attacked by an incel with an AR-15. james fields would have had a much higher body count if instead of a crashing a $25,000 car, he opened up with a $400 AR-15 and $20 worth of ammo on that crowd in Charlottesville. Rent-A-Cop posted:Didn't you once get banned 3 times in a "Post your desk" thread? they only started screaming at me years later when i started pointing out that we sure do have a lot more mass murders with AR-15s now that there are tons more AR-15s out there, or that we could save a lot of lives by restricting handgun purchases at the small cost of waiting a bit longer to get our fun hobby toys. trolling is fine, but presenting evidence that guns cause ~*unintended consequences*~ is the real sacred cow
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 04:32
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:It makes me such a lovable scamp.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
zapplez posted:So yeah, I am going to keep saying doing gun control on its own isnt the solution to getting rid of this problem. Serious question: why are you going to keep saying these things? Your argument seems to be that the only reason more buildings don't explode or people get run down on the sidewalk is because those lunatics perpetrating the acts have access to guns instead. I have no idea what this has to do with gun control outside of trying to scare people away from supporting gun control legislation by replacing their fear of getting shot with the fear of getting run over or blown up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
oldskool posted:Serious question: why are you going to keep saying these things? Your argument seems to be that the only reason more buildings don't explode or people get run down on the sidewalk is because those lunatics perpetrating the acts have access to guns instead. I have no idea what this has to do with gun control outside of trying to scare people away from supporting gun control legislation by replacing their fear of getting shot with the fear of getting run over or blown up. Maybe because I live where we had a crazy incel who got denied firearms, so as a result he rented a uhaul and still killed a dozen people easily? So I don't want the half measure on just focusing on guns when the issue of these mass shooters is more complicated then that. Its the old skin cancer argument. We shouldn't be focused only on better surgery technique to remove the cancer. We also need better sunblock. The mass shootings / vehicular homicide / stabbings etc are a symptom of a lonely, perverted, messed up young man. The gun isn't the cause. Its just a very, very effective tool. If they can't get a gun they will still act out another way and can still kill a dozen people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
That is a nonsensical argument. Better treatment for skin cancer has saved thousands of lives. What you need is both better prevention and treatment. You have to talk about both. You might not be doing this intentionally, but you frequently seem to frame this as a false dichotomy between treatment or prevention. You should stop doing that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 17:00
|
|
|
Squalid posted:That is a nonsensical argument. Better treatment for skin cancer has saved thousands of lives. What you need is both better prevention and treatment. You have to talk about both. Thats been my point the whole time. One part is not enough. I've never been anti-gun control. But its a pipe dream that somehow a perfect gun control would stop these senseless mass killings. Thats the argument. We need to do BOTH. So I can get a bit defensive when people say "we cant tell CNN how to report cuz my first amendment!"!"@"! Some things are more important than the constitution. Like if we want to ban handguns for self defense we are going to have to change amendments anyways. We have the studies that say media contagion is part of the problem, we can't ignore it anymore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
Whether it's your intention or not, each of your arguments is carrying the implication of a silent "Why bother?" at the end of it: Any passed gun law won't be perfect (so why bother?) Mental health needs additional funding and research (so why bother?) There are other ways to commit acts of terror, either singularly or en masse (so why bother?) etc. It's like you're arguing against No Smoking areas because asbestos exists. Supportive of gun control you may be, but posting about mental health issues, bombings, vehicular assaults, etc. in the gun control thread comes across as trying to change the topic and run everybody around in a circle with nothing changing. Somebody Else's Problem/analysis paralysis is real.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 18:42
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:Guys, I think all of the mass shootings might have another common factor! At last, I have solved the mystery of the ages! Outlaw dicks and only outlaws will have dicks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
Give every boy a tommygun at 12 years old, to prevent bombings and truck attacks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 15:52
|
|
|
zapplez posted:Maybe because I live where we had a crazy incel who got denied firearms, so as a result he rented a uhaul and still killed a dozen people easily?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
Another mass shooting in the USA as usual. Little details so far on gun used or profile of the shooter. 5 dead 20 injured. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49540160
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 02:43
|
|
|
zapplez posted:Another mass shooting in the USA as usual. Little details so far on gun used or profile of the shooter. 5 dead 20 injured. also it seems like this guy was on the way to shoot up whatever his actual target was, but got tailed by the cops for driving suspiciously, and then opened fire. lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 03:05
|
|
|
Why is that guns can only be spoken of obliquely, like those who do not know the holy word of The Gun must instead compare it to cars, or alcohol or loving skin cancer. It's a tool made to kill people. That's all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
because there is no good faith defense of gun ownership apart from "i like them".
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 13:00
|
|
|
Gun-owners like to gently caress and cum in their guns. It's a sensitive subject for them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:because there is no good faith defense of gun ownership apart from "i like them". Just like a sports car. What honest man needs to go 100 miles an hour. Your dumb hobbies shouldn't put the rest of the public at risk.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2019 18:14
|
|