im not surprised, last month they were all eating tide pods
That's a pretty bad title based on the actual citations in the article
I too think young people wanting to keep their constitutional right are babies.
I mean the March for our lives was about gun violence, not guns
Seems like just a few days ago you weren't listening to what said few hundred thousand people were saying.
By falsely attributing gun culture to it even though gun violence is in decline and ownership is up
Don't gaslight people. March for our lives was a post-truth protest because it's part of liberal frustrations with the parts of society that aren'
Yea, I'm going to need a source on that first bit there.
Here's how you actually win over someone from your position: don't act as if the people protesting are doing it with some evil liberal agenda.
Look, I think they're off point. I think they're looking in the wrong area for answers. But the reason they're marching is because we have an unacceptable amount of gun violence in the US. We should not have to deal with the amount of violence that's present in the US.
They're angry. They're scared. And they're not wrong for feeling that. You and I may disagree that, say, a ban on guns is the answer -- but they're just searching for anything that will stop it.
Instead of ranting about how the protest is some liberal post-truth marxist shit, try offering a solution to the problem they're protesting for.
Nobody in America should be okay with the violence going on. People are right to point it out.
Why do you think it was posted.
What is this shit headline? Nothing in the article confirms it at all. The closest I can find is that 47% of 13-17 years old think tighter gun control laws and background checks will prevent more mass shootings in the US. How do you infer from that that they "love their guns"?
I'm only applying the same standards we have for the anti-immigrant mentality where we figure irrationalism and moral panic fills the void between facts and belief, and we don't give this apology for Islamophobia. Instead, we stigmatize dog-whistling unlike here with the statement "unacceptable amount of violence in the US". The person I quoted was misleading and trying to deny the inherent confusion of this protest by saying this is about gun violence, but that's not the debate. It's supposed to be about mass shooting because there's just no case to be made that violence crime or gun violence is increasing, and those feature less for assault weapons anyway.
But past that there isn't sufficient evidence to say mass shootings are increasing in frequency (although they are in fatalities) or that the AWB had any effect on them. Gun violence has declined in spite of its expiration.
We’ve had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States..
There are now more guns than people in the United States
Did mass shootings increase 200 percent since assault weapons ba..
Deutch said, "Mass shootings went up 200 percent in the decade after the assault weapons ban expired."
Researchers of mass shootings told us the analysis Deutch relied on is flawed because it did not adjust for population changes and used irrelevant data points for comparison.
Trends in the incidence and severity of mass public shootings on a per capita basis also show that the rate per 100 million is similar now to that of the 1980s and early 1990s, an expert told us.
A separate analysis found an 183 percent increase in mass shootings where six or more people were killed in the decade after the ban, compared with the 10-year ban period. But experts caution against inferring that an increase is due only to the ban’s expiration.
Deutch’s claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926
Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings? The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading. LCMs are known to have been used in less than one third of 1% of mass shootings. News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were known to have been used, occurring in the United States in 1994–2013, were examined. There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload. In all of these 23 incidents, the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2- to 4-seconds delay for each magazine change. Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain such slow rates of fire that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/108876702237341
Right-to-carry (RTC) laws mandate that concealed weapon permits be granted to qualified applicants. Such laws could reduce the number of mass public shootings as prospective shooters consider the possibility of encountering armed civilians. However, these laws might increase the number of shootings by making it easier for prospective shooters to acquire guns. We evaluate 25 RTC laws using state panel data for 1977 through 1999. We estimate numerous Poisson and negative binomial models and find virtually no support for the hypothesis that the laws increase or reduce the number of mass public shootings.
Mass Shootings Are Getting Deadlier, Not More Frequent
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/concealed-gun-permits-hit-record-16-million-50-rate-in-pa-county
Since this is an old debate that's suddenly revived in spite of no new evidence, it seems pretty reasonable to conclude the recent protest was more defined by tribalism, polarization, opposition party status, and the decline in civil debate. This makes sense if you look at the town hall hosted by CNN, which featured one of the students stating that looking at Rubio was like looking at Cruz. It's also reasonable to assume this has strong overtones of cultural conflict because America's unusual gun violence is tied to its historically unusual right wing, religious character compared to other democracies. That character is supposed to be what gave us Trump and his holding back of a response to populist threats, it's supposed to have become a problem in the globalized era and part of our original sin. Frustration with the right's growth is reaching a height, and the issue with guns is just a way to target it by proxy. In doing so the left in this debate becomes no different in substance as how we view the right in the immigration debate, post-factual, based on cultural issues, irrational, and enabled by media's increased power in the digital era
Gun violence not increasing doesn't mean it's not an issue, especially when your murder rates are through the roof compared to any other first world country.
There's better explanations for that than American culture. Guns have always been part of our way of life because property ownership is. But violent crime and mass shootings are new, and there's better predictors of them than gun ownership rates. That's why there's countries with a lot of guns but without our degree of violence. Violent crime spiked and eventually declined from the 60s onwards, while household rates of gun ownership have not. There are more guns and permits than usual and the AWB has expired, but gun violence has declined and mass shootings are not above an 80s/90s rate of occurrence.
You can call it a variable but that doesn't mean it's a significant one or that gun control affects it meaningfully. The gap between significance of the variable and how it's made out to be is best assumed to be down to a greater sense of ideological and cultural tension
You point to countries with high ownership rate and low murder rate as evidence that gun ownership doesn't significantly affect violence, but I could do the same with countries that have abysmal poverty rates and mental healthcare yet don't have a murder rate nearly as large as the US does. Does that mean that those aren't significant variables either?
There's already a proven link between gun ownership and suicide rates among males. I don't think it's too far-fetched to extrapolate and entertain the idea that gun ownership tends to increase violence in general.
I also think countries outside of america with high ownership and low murder rate is stricter than america is when it comes to gun regulation. Like Israel or Sweden. Though someone can correct me on this if I'm wrong.
Switzerland is often mentioned as well and as far as I know they're still more restrictive than the US.
Ah yes, it's the work of those evil liberals. Of course! Why didn't I think of it sooner. I bet their cloud people overlords are behind this blindness, they're blasting gamma rays into our brains to make us more pliable to the libtard narrative brothers!
Here's a thought, maybe people are actually just pretty fucking upset that children are being gunned down by sometimes decently over a hundred every year in a first world country that's supposedly the "global leader of the first world" and "champion of freedom". I'd be pretty upset too if my kid went to school one day and was fucking wasted by some disenfranchised loner who stole daddy's AR, Glock or whatever gun they left around the bedside table or otherwise unsecured, and decided to just take as many down with them as they could for whatever dumb justification they had. Here's another thought, the US is the only first world country with these consistent, massive figures for attacks on schools, maybe guns can be part of the equation as to why this happens, it's not a black and white issue here, the issue isn't 100% guns, but it sure as fuck isn't 0% guns.
I don't think you actually know what gaslighting is
on the topic of post-truth politics though, an image of emma gonzalez has been going around
https://twitter.com/pfpicardi/status/977959864042491905
It tricked adam baldwin
https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/977690334883807232
We could always fix healthcare and have less mediawhoring of shootings...
Could try fixing a lot of things, but nah, that shit's either socialism or the deep state coming to take all the guns, so how about we all just embrace freedom and blame the liberal agenda?
"Just fix healthcare!"
What do you think the republicans have been doing to healthcare?
That just makes it all the more important that we do so?
I don't get this mentality of "Republicans fucked up healthcare, so we should fuck up their guns"
That's really not what I was trying to say at all.
he means they can run around the subject, saying its the mental healthcare, but in the end they keep gutting that too.
You were a kid once.
Where are you getting the 100+ kids statistic?
I'm not opposed to certain regulations if they're proven to be effective, but that's not the debate we're seeing and I have no faith in the other side to be reasoned and rational given the current political atmosphere and the cultural overtones of all this. There's a kind of sloppiness we're seeing from the pro-gun side because there's a lot of ideological zeal powering everything after 2016. They're not being surgical or rational in what they're proposing, it's all far-reaching demands, media spectacle, protest aesthetics, and tough rhetoric for the sake of political power and a sense of big accomplishment while the left is in a state of opposition party status ahead of the midterms. That's what I mean by the state of policy (non-)debate as post-truth. I also don't believe 10 round mags make a difference, I cited evidence above on large capacity magazines and mass shootings above suggesting otherwise. I don't see any explanations or evidence of how the qualities of assault weapons accounts for the increase in fatalities in mass shootings, since their frequency hasn't changed, and how banning them reduces it. I see no impact of the 1994 AWB on anything, really, and I've shown violent crime and gun violence have risen and fallen independently of household gun ownership rates which have remained stable. In fact, there are more guns per person and gun permits these days yet those two have fallen and mass shootings have not changed in frequency.
I believe that erosion of the sense of community and social trust, isolation/atomization, the rise in single motherhood, the rise in income inequality, the rise in mental illness, and how these acutely manifest in public school settings are all much closer to the source of the social ills that cause disenfranchisement, violent crime, and mass shootings. These things were not seen before the 1970s-90s, yet gun culture or general American 'backwardsness' compared to other developed countries predates this. It's not working or lower-middle class red state folk owning firearms and their political lobbies, I think their 'backwards-looking' culture is being unfairly scapegoated because it more easily fits a narrative whose conclusion ends with a simple message of voting for an opposition, current year party. In reality, I think the trends behind mass shooting are much more complex than that and speaks to a kind of social dysfunction that open up a lot of questions about our direction as a society. The solutions aren't always a vote either.
That goes for the suicide epidemic as well. Banning guns to deal with it is the definition of band-aid fix and political opportunism of an opposition party. Just the fact alone that the suicide epidemic is particularly affecting white men, male educational achievement is lagging, and white american life expectancy overall has declined in the midst of falling happiness suggests there's a lot more to our social malaise than just prevalence of guns, otherwise we'd see things more spread out. The left has not adequately explained this or offered solutions on this issue, I don't believe it has any incentive to which is part of the reason the blue wall collapsed in our time.
If automation is the root cause of lower class anxiety, not the scapegoated issue of immigration and band-aid fix of strict controls, then I believe we can say similar about the root cause being the state of our social fabric, not the scapegoated issue of American folk-y red state backwardsness and similar band-aid fix of strict controls. This is the left's equivalent moral panic as far as I can tell.
None of this disproves the link between gun ownership and suicide rates. Gun ownership causes an increase in suicides. Your whataboutism doesn't change that fact.
A solution that gets rid of a cause is not a "band-aid fix".
That's not whataboutism. I noticed that's a really popular word now and hardly ever used correctly
Gun ownership is not a cause. It predates this issue and I've seen no evidence of a dip in suicide rates with the AWB. These are serious holes in your argument. You can argue that it makes it easier, and it probably does, but this does nothing about the root issue. This means it's a band-aid fix whose sudden relevance is inseparable from post-2016 ideological and cultural tension and therefore political opportunism. It's no different from the right championing something like Hays Code in response to Hollywood sexual assault.
Does this mean you're conceding the point about mass shootings after Lambeth tried to reframe this protest as about general gun violence and ties to gun ownership?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
