Shooting at Florida School, Shooter IS in custody. - Sensationalist Headlines

The constant argument against putting effort into addressing poverty/mental health issues because it'd be easier to say we banned guns and pretend we fixed it reminds me of the "what if it's all a hoax and we make a better world for nothing?" comic. [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=SIRIUS;53146516]Great argument, it is entirely possible to push for gun control AND mental healthcare[/QUOTE] Answer this, if you address the sources of violence such that violence becomes negligible/statistically anomalous when it does happen (ala Czech Republic with a homicide rate of 1 in 100,000 with 16.5 guns per 100 people & growing), what's the point of banning guns on top of it? For you this obviously isn't about anything but punishing conservatives.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;53146469]Donald Trump isnt an entrenched part of America as a country and its culture dating back to its inception with the right to own him being second only to free speech. [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] Like what kind of inane comparison is that?[/QUOTE] The point is more that improbable things can happen. Like I think making all the changes to mental health and education and gun regulation is possible if improbable.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53146325]The fact that you think that starting on fair ground is a "concession" just proves that you're not ready to start discussing the issue. If you can't start from a neutral position, then there is no point. [/QUOTE] I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. I said I wanted fair ground, neutrality, no preferential treatment for either side, and points and ideas to stand on the merits of their logic and reasoning. I just want fair discussion without the expectation of a moral obligation to give in to the other side if I didn't already agree with them. Anyway, look, this argument is kinda getting off-topic and I'm getting kind of busy. I want to talk about gun law with you at some point outside of this conversation because I do want to hear what you have to say but our conflict is getting in the way of that. Could we revisit this later privately?

[QUOTE=Bathacker;53144868]"Sure, fewer children would die in pointless mass murder incidents, but what's in it for me?"[/QUOTE] I know you elaborated on your reasoning for this statement, but I have a serious question since it's such a needlessly alarmist statement. Let's step back and look at some statistics. [URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604"]In 2015, 475 people were killed by mass shootings[/URL]. In the same year, [URL="https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html"]10,265 people have died to drunk driving,[/URL] and [URL="https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm"]smoking is a factor in nearly one in five deaths in the U.S.[/URL] I can already hear some of you saying "But Protocol7, you idiot, we can address all these problems at the same time!" And yeah, you're right, we can. But why is it when nearly 500,000 people a year die from completely preventable causes nobody bats an eye, but suddenly, when it's 475 people a year, some of which are children, that's the problem we need to solve? People talk about how these mass shooting deaths were easily preventable, but where's the outrage for drunk driving and smoking, two also easily preventable things that are orders of magnitude more serious than mass shootings? I don't want to belittle the deaths of those who were killed in mass shootings, but I am sick and tired of this fearmongering around guns when nobody gives a shit about the other things that cause over 1000 times the amount of death and injury. Don't pretend you care about preventable deaths if you only start talking every time a school gets shot up. I'm also not trying to single you out, Bathacker - your statement just echoes a lot of rhetoric that drives me nuts whenever something like this happens.

snip, missed a line in the above post

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53146653]snip, missed a line in the above post[/QUOTE] Yeah sorry, I edited it after I posted and wanted to make it clear I wasn't trying to attack him personally.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53146519]The constant argument against putting effort into addressing poverty/mental health issues because it'd be easier to say we banned guns and pretend we fixed it reminds me of the "what if it's all a hoax and we make a better world for nothing?" comic. [/QUOTE] Tbh I very rarely (if ever?) see anyone "arguing against" putting effort into addressing poverty/mental health issues.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;53146647]I know you elaborated on your reasoning for this statement, but I have a serious question since it's such a needlessly alarmist statement. Let's step back and look at some statistics. [URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604"]In 2015, 475 people were killed by mass shootings[/URL]. In the same year, [URL="https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html"]10,265 people have died to drunk driving,[/URL] and [URL="https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm"]smoking is a factor in nearly one in five deaths in the U.S.[/URL] I can already hear some of you saying "But Protocol7, you idiot, we can address all these problems at the same time!" And yeah, you're right, we can. But why is it when nearly 500,000 people a year die from completely preventable causes nobody bats an eye, but suddenly, when it's 475 people a year, some of which are children, that's the problem we need to solve? People talk about how these mass shooting deaths were easily preventable, but where's the outrage for drunk driving and smoking, two also easily preventable things that are orders of magnitude more serious than mass shootings? I don't want to belittle the deaths of those who were killed in mass shootings, but I am sick and tired of this fearmongering around guns when nobody gives a shit about the other things that cause over 1000 times the amount of death and injury. Don't pretend you care about preventable deaths if you only start talking every time a school gets shot up. I'm also not trying to single you out, Bathacker - your statement just echoes a lot of rhetoric that drives me nuts whenever something like this happens.[/QUOTE] You're literally comparing people willingly participating in circumstances that may kill them in the short or long run with kids getting fucking gunned down in a nation that so wants us all to view them as a nation with modern, humanistic sensibilities. Just what dude.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;53146748]You're literally comparing people willingly participating in circumstances that may kill them in the short or long run with kids getting fucking gunned down in a nation that so wants us all to view them as a nation with modern, humanistic sensibilities. Just what dude.[/QUOTE] You consider victims of drunk drivers to be "willingly participating"??? Are you kidding me?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53146751]You consider victims of drunk drivers to be "willingly participating"??? Are you kidding me?[/QUOTE] Does this change the fact that on Gun issues, you people are on the fucking level of Singapore and Congo? [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;53146759]More children were killed by drunk drivers than school shooters. If you're looking at the statistics, then the fact is, we're doing the same thing for both. Sending "hopes and prayers" to the victims/families. I don't see any sort of calls for reimplementing prohibition, or restricting how much booze you can buy at a time. I don't see any calls for requiring lockout devices on all vehicles, even when, say, a bus is hit by a drunk/distracted driver. And yet the second someone gets killed by a black rifle, the immediate reaction is "ban them". So tell me, do you want to ban them because they're scary, or because the statistics support your argument. Here's a hint. The statistics don't support any argument for any form of ban.[/QUOTE] Ban driving. reboot America from the ground up. Try to get it right this time.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;53146748]You're literally comparing people willingly participating in circumstances that may kill them in the short or long run with kids getting fucking gunned down in a nation that so wants us all to view them as a nation with modern, humanistic sensibilities. Just what dude.[/QUOTE] You missed the entire point of my post and even fell into the same alarmist "b-but the kids" rhetoric I criticize. Bravo!

[QUOTE=Protocol7;53146647]I know you elaborated on your reasoning for this statement, but I have a serious question since it's such a needlessly alarmist statement. Let's step back and look at some statistics. [URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604"]In 2015, 475 people were killed by mass shootings[/URL]. In the same year, [URL="https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html"]10,265 people have died to drunk driving,[/URL] and [URL="https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm"]smoking is a factor in nearly one in five deaths in the U.S.[/URL] I can already hear some of you saying "But Protocol7, you idiot, we can address all these problems at the same time!" And yeah, you're right, we can. But why is it when nearly 500,000 people a year die from completely preventable causes nobody bats an eye, but suddenly, when it's 475 people a year, some of which are children, that's the problem we need to solve? People talk about how these mass shooting deaths were easily preventable, but where's the outrage for drunk driving and smoking, two also easily preventable things that are orders of magnitude more serious than mass shootings? I don't want to belittle the deaths of those who were killed in mass shootings, but I am sick and tired of this fearmongering around guns when nobody gives a shit about the other things that cause over 1000 times the amount of death and injury. Don't pretend you care about preventable deaths if you only start talking every time a school gets shot up. I'm also not trying to single you out, Bathacker - your statement just echoes a lot of rhetoric that drives me nuts whenever something like this happens.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that statement I made was needlessly emotional and admittedly just a shitty one to open on, sorry. It's not a reflection of my personal beliefs on the matter. This is a valid question though so I want to answer it. I think the outrage and fear at guns specifically is primarily due to two factors: Availability Bias. A group of people being killed in one place at one time for one reason is more memorable and emotionally impactful than a collection of isolated incidents. Even if the total number is greater, people identify their priorities based on what was more tragic in their mind. I don't have the statistic on hand but I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of gun-related deaths in the US aren't even from mass shootings but those are the incidents people point to for justification for their beliefs. This isn't exclusive to guns, either. If a drunk driver were slamming into a school bus every few weeks I'm confident there would suddenly be calls to restrict alcohol. For real examples, I'd also point to people who are afraid of flying or nuclear power because of a handful of tragedies. I can't remember what it's called, but there's a particular kind of bias where people feel better about situations where they're in control even if they're not objectively safer. Even if the threat of a parent's child dying in a school shooting is statistically much less likely than them dying in a car crash, the parent will still feel more nervous because they aren't directly in control of their child's safety while they're at school.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53146519]The constant argument against putting effort into addressing poverty/mental health issues because it'd be easier to say we banned guns and pretend we fixed it reminds me of the "what if it's all a hoax and we make a better world for nothing?" comic. [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] Answer this, if you address the sources of violence such that violence becomes negligible/statistically anomalous when it does happen (ala Czech Republic with a homicide rate of 1 in 100,000 with 16.5 guns per 100 people & growing), what's the point of banning guns on top of it? For you this obviously isn't about anything but punishing conservatives.[/QUOTE] If the cause of violence is completely removed then yes, but that certainly won't happen any time soon, so I say push for both

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53147035]If the cause of violence is completely removed then yes, but that certainly won't happen any time soon, so I say push for both[/QUOTE] How is it that you cant comprehend how infinitesimally more difficult one would be than the other?

[QUOTE=AaronM202;53147053]How is it that you cant comprehend how infinitesimally more difficult one would be than the other?[/QUOTE] Hard =/= not worthwhile, and both should be pursued

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53147070]Hard =/= not worthwhile, and both should be pursued[/QUOTE] Did you just completely ignore ilikecorn's entire post?

[QUOTE=AaronM202;53147076]Did you just completely ignore ilikecorn's entire post?[/QUOTE] What the comparison to drunk driving? [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;53147080]Can you not comprehend that pushing for both will result in neither? Can you not comprehend that pushing for gun control is an ultimately fruitless effort, and will exhaust all political capital that would otherwise be used to make society a safer place, therefore REDUCING GUN DEATHS? You say push for both, I say that's the most uneducated thing i've continued to hear in this debate.[/QUOTE] How does one nullify or get in the way of the other?

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53147083]What the comparison to drunk driving? [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] How does one nullify or get in the way of the other?[/QUOTE] No i meant his post about how United States politics works which you're completely ignoring so you can keep repeating "no but just do it tho".

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53147090]Christ are you serious? Have you no concept of political capital? Have you no concept of the state of US politics?[/QUOTE] Alright, first I'm gonna need you to settle down the hostility, it really doesn't help. Political capital in the US atm isn't exactly a picture of efficiency as far as I can tell, and a lot of the mental healthcare issues aren't necessarily problems of lack of funding, but poor implementation/ terrible use of money. [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;53146711]Except there's a thing called political capital. An unspoken currency spent by politicians and political parties, in order to pass things that aren't exactly popular, but are important. Passing anything near what you've described would bankrupt the party that implemented it for DECADES. It'd get rescinded literally day 1 that they weren't in power. Because if you're going to spend capital on something, spend it on something that might actually reduce violence as a whole, instead of just saying "HAH, now we got rid of guns so those pesky criminals can't do things", how about you pass something that just.. gets rid of the vast majority of reasons to be a criminal? You have hope for a blue wave in 2018. I guaran-fucking-tee that if you magically passed gun control that you've suggested, you'd not only see a red wave in 2018, you wouldn't see a blue president for 20+ years, nor would you see a blue majority in either house for a minimum of 15 years. [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] Because of how unpopular it'd be, you'd have a hard time ramming a gun control bill through, and then immediately trying to remedy the other things as well. The "but what about both" crowd, simply doesn't understand US politics, or the political climate.[/QUOTE] ahhh, didn't see this post, that's what you meant. I mean that is a lot of speculation, but regardless, pushing for these ideas (gun control/ mental healthcare reform) is more than pushing for laws, but also push the ideas socially. Ideas accepted widely require much less political capital to pass because of the pressure from the community

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53147123]But the pressure from the community is vastly in favor of social reforms, rather than gun control. It'd actually be significantly easier to sell societal reform, than "your rifle is evil and you dont deserve to have it"[/QUOTE] good, like I said I support both, I want social reform, but I'm def not gonna shit on people protesting for gun control, because I think it would help

Can you stop being so obtuse and then acting like people are losing patience and jumping on you for no reason? That is so fucking annoying. You know your posts are basically devoid of useful content; trying to get a discussion out of you has been like wringing water out of a stone. Do you think we've had 20 pages of discussion up til now without any chill? Like if you have any legitimate convictions here you should be able to offer more than "well i think guns should be banned tbh" in response to the multiple paragraphs you've been offered. Please.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53147134]In what way, might I ask? In order to discuss this, I need to see what your ideal system would be, and what your ultimate goal is.[/QUOTE] Background checks, psych evaluations, mandatory training, limiting magazine sizes, certain round/ gun types perhaps, longer waiting period, max number per household. I'd mainly look at what other countries have implemented successfully though

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53147179]Background checks, psych evaluations, mandatory training, limiting magazine sizes, certain round/ gun types perhaps, longer waiting period, max number per household. I'd mainly look at what other countries have implemented successfully though[/QUOTE] What exactly would constitute a stronger background check? I’d like to see the FBI actually have to respond to NICS checks and to open it up to civilians. What would these psych evals consist of? What sort of mental issues will completely bar someone from owning guns? More training is not a bad thing. No thanks No thanks. It has been found that waiting periods only reduce suicides, not homicides. If your goal is to reduce homicides I am not in favor of waiting periods. I’ll get the links when i’m home later, currently at school. No thanks.

[QUOTE=bdd458;53147197]What exactly would constitute a stronger background check? I’d like to see the FBI actually have to respond to NICS checks and to open it up to civilians. What would these psych evals consist of? What sort of mental issues will completely bar someone from owning guns? More training is not a bad thing. No thanks No thanks. It has been found that waiting periods only reduce suicides, not homicides. If your goal is to reduce homicides I am not in favor of waiting periods. I’ll get the links when i’m home later, currently at school. No thanks.[/QUOTE] Why no thanks?

Because I don’t agree with limiting the types and amount of guns people can have??

[QUOTE=bdd458;53147212]Because I don’t agree with limiting the types and amount of guns people can have??[/QUOTE] Yeah, I know that's what you said, but I'm asking why

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53147179]Background checks, psych evaluations, mandatory training, limiting magazine sizes, certain round/ gun types perhaps, longer waiting period, max number per household. I'd mainly look at what other countries have implemented successfully though[/QUOTE] And most of that will be adamantly fought against by people like me. As much as I detest the NRA, when it comes down to it it's funded in majority not by big corporations but by hundreds of thousands of indeviduals. If they're capable of getting what they are by what is essentially grass roots funding, you're going to have more than just an uphill battle ahead of you. For every member of the NRA there's hundreds of gun owners who either seldom donate or don't at all, but at their core support gun rights.

[QUOTE=bdd458;53147197]What exactly would constitute a stronger background check? I’d like to see the FBI actually have to respond to NICS checks and to open it up to civilians. What would these psych evals consist of? What sort of mental issues will completely bar someone from owning guns? More training is not a bad thing. No thanks No thanks. It has been found that waiting periods only reduce suicides, not homicides. If your goal is to reduce homicides I am not in favor of waiting periods. I’ll get the links when i’m home later, currently at school. No thanks.[/QUOTE] Maybe not relevant to the ends of your argument here, but I'm 100% in favor of reducing suicides as well

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53147262]Maybe not relevant to the ends of your argument here, but I'm 100% in favor of reducing suicides as well[/QUOTE] Oh I definitely am as well, which is why I’d be ok with them being on handguns. But from what I saw some studies saw no effect and others did. But, I’d like to see more studies into why suicide saw an uptick starting in about 2005 as well.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53147272]But, again, that could be cut off at the source, rather than by simply eliminating 1 of many means of ending one's life. It's absolute bullshit that, in order to see a psych specialist, you're going to wait a minimum of 3 months , or they're not accepting new patients at all. Go to an ER? You'll see one for about.. 10 minutes. They'll throw pills at you, and you'll walk out (unless they commit you, but surprise most inpatient facilities are full to the brim toooooooo)[/QUOTE] I'm all ears for how we could improve that issue on a reasonable time-frame. I'm personally invested in solutions, in fact. Regardless, is it not worth instating something as tame as a longer waiting period in order to save lives?