Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your response it poorly reasoned for several factors:
1.) You assume because I think gun control is a good idea I must therefore be pro suicide and pro abortion, of which I have never stated my opinion on either.
2.) The 11,000 gun deaths figure only accounts for homicides. It omits the additional 20,000 additional suicide deaths by firearm each year.
3.) Are suicides a problem here in the US? Absolutely, gun suicides are particularly problematic because the self harm can be committed easily with little chance of revival and because its by far the most common method for suicide. Accounting for 60% of all suicides. What makes it so bad is that the most common method of suicide is also the most fatal.
I wonder how many lost souls would have been saved if they didn't use a firearm to commit suicide. Just adds another reason why sensible gun control is needed.
And if you are in any way in favor of gun control/confiscation/ban in my world you are LIBERAL, and you will always be liberal. (Even if you have an "R" next to your name or ideology)
No matter how much or hard you try to argue otherwise.
His country has none of the issues that we face in the United States. Look at where the majority of violence takes place, then step back and logically try to form an argument that any amount of gun control would put a dent in that 11,000 number. Even a full gun ban wouldn't see any sort of result until Generations X's children's children were old enough to run for POTUS. Unless, of course, there was confiscation to go along with it - which would mean that it isn't a gun ban, merely a restriction on citizens which places more power in the hands of the government.
His country has many of the same issues that face our country. Poverty, drug abuse, broken families, inequality, etc. London also has an inner city black population of close to a million people. So aside from guns what difference is there that can explain the gulf in homicide rates?
His country has many of the same issues that face our country. Poverty, drug abuse, broken families, inequality, etc. London also has an inner city black population of close to a million people. So aside from guns what difference is there that can explain the gulf in homicide rates?
Less violent culture, less institutionalized racism and much lower repression of minorities. Social safety nets. Different metric reported (UK reports murder not homicide).
Lets be honest, option A no income or benefits.
Or.
Option B state provided benefits, income, and healthcare.
Now if you have options A and B, which is more likely to encourage people to engage in violent criminal enterprises that could result in death or long term incarceration?
If you chose B please go stand in the corner with the pointy hat with a D on it.
And if you are in any way in favor of gun control/confiscation/ban in my world you are LIBERAL, and you will always be liberal. (Even if you have an "R" next to your name or ideology)
No matter how much or hard you try to argue otherwise.
The conservative parties in the UK, France, Germany, Australia and New Zealand have all supported gun control in one way or another. So does that make them all liberal too?
The conservative parties in the UK, France, Germany, Australia and New Zealand have all supported gun control in one way or another. So does that make them all liberal too?
You are right. Media coverage is First Amendment. You asked "What can we do?" We as a populace can choose NOT to glorify or sensationalize these acts. It would have to be a voluntary act not to contribute to the sensationalism. Very simply, "Kids were killed today in a school shooting." That's all the coverage it gets. No names, no places, no numbers to beat, etc... I think we should put together a panel to study the facts. We have a system (Youtube and sponsors of network news) that is driven by views or clicks. Those views or clicks generate income for the person broadcasting the information. As long as someone is willing to take that money or seek that fame, we will have people committing mass murder to get into the news. Our problem is societal.
Rather how I've always viewed how my death would be noted.
"In today's news, an internal security woman operative was assassinated outside her home. The name is being withheld pending notification of the next of kin.". (okay, it's paraphrased from "Dempsey & Makepeace", but perhaps that is how we are "taught")
Further, whether (in that scenario) someone takes me out with a sniper shot or by a car bomb, that information is left out........which perhaps is how a school attack should be reported. As a school attack and not a school shooting, for two reasons.
First of all, we are so conditioned to the word "shooting" we are probably now like a Pavlov dog. If it doesn't say "shooting", we may not even may attention.
Secondly, it is an attack and we should start seeing it that way. Dead is dead, maimed is maimed, and whether it is by rifle or fire, it is still an attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno
Your response it poorly reasoned for several factors:
1.) You assume because I think gun control is a good idea I must therefore be pro suicide and pro abortion, of which I have never stated my opinion on either.
2.) The 11,000 gun deaths figure only accounts for homicides. It omits the additional 20,000 additional suicide deaths by firearm each year.
3.) Are suicides a problem here in the US? Absolutely, gun suicides are particularly problematic because the self harm can be committed easily with little chance of revival and because its by far the most common method for suicide. Accounting for 60% of all suicides. What makes it so bad is that the most common method of suicide is also the most fatal.
I wonder how many lost souls would have been saved if they didn't use a firearm to commit suicide. Just adds another reason why sensible gun control is needed.
Well, to each their own. Japan, without the gun, still has ways to commit suicide:
Rather how I've always viewed how my death would be noted.
"In today's news, an internal security woman operative was assassinated outside her home. The name is being withheld pending notification of the next of kin.". (okay, it's paraphrased from "Dempsey & Makepeace", but perhaps that is how we are "taught")
Further, whether (in that scenario) some takes me out with a sniper shot or by a car bomb, that information is left out........which perhaps is how a school attack should be reported. As a school attack and not a school shooting, for two reasons.
First of all, we are so conditioned to the word "shooting" we are probably now like a Pavlov dog. If it doesn't say "shooting", we may not even may attention.
Secondly, it is an attack and we should start seeing it that way. Dead is dead, maimed is maimed, and whether it is by rifle or fire, it is still an attack.
Exactly right, the means on how someone was killed only matters in a court of law for charges.
It might matter to the family that they were killed via a bomb vs. a gun or poisoning or some other means.
Thanks for batting ideas back and forth to solve problems. I feel like I have a better sense of what direction you were wanting to head into now.
I am a bit of an amateur anthropologist. I too would feel at a loss without full details. I do believe that in the teen versions of these shootings that recognition does play a large part; especially Parkland.
Cheers
Likewise. Rarely do I feel the effort to be better understood is successful, so it's nice every great once in awhile to see maybe it is possible. To that end...
All this about media play does not mean that "recognition" does not play a part. Recognition does play a part, but it's a part of what I think is a far more serious deep-seeded problem that has a teen act in such a way different from all the millions of other teens exposed to the same influences.
On a personal note, I let my two kids (boy and girl)essentially watch or do anything they wanted on TV, playing video games, etc., but because my wife and I also paid close attention to their development, we were able to monitor whether there was such a deep-seeded problem that should cause us concern. Fortunately, though they watched all the news on TV that I usually watched after dinner, and though my son especially played all the video games, like Grand Theft Auto, Halo, Call of Duty, etc., they are now good responsible young adults.
To be fair, however, I do realize I was not one to watch the sort of sensational news that lots of people tune into, but I really doubt that made much a difference. I watched local news that would capture the news about gun-related shootings of course, local and national, but mostly I watched the PBS Newshour to avoid the sensationalism (and commercials).
Thanks to you too for the comments that seem better rooted in the realm of reasonable.
Why are you solving the problem for a subset of a bigger problem?
If we control violent crime and work to reduce it. Won't that by its action reduce gun crime?
However if we work to reduce gun crime alone by a simple method of eliminating classifications of or guns entirely, there is no guarantee that violence will be reduced.
Example is murder and violent crime in the UK. Stats from 1990-1997 are lower than stats 1997-2004. 1997 being the year of the 1997 Firearm (amendment) acts. Violent crime did not fall, murder did not fall. Sure in comparison to the US the UK'S murder rate is low, but the ban did not reduce murders in the UK and I'm not even sure it reduced gun murders.
Problem with Aus. mass shooting claims is that by Aus. standards there are 3-4 mass shootings per year in the US, 5 dead not including the perp, but the 345 mass shootings claims made about the US are 3 people shot (not necessarily killed). Further it ignores the mass homicides by motor vehicle and fire that have happened in Australia since Port Arthur.
Hopefully my comment #4296 answers your question. Let me know if not...
Your side keeps bringing up gun deaths. Either knowingly or unknowingly, you do not omit SUICIDES in your inflated and manipulated "stats" to try to back up your side.
Then - if and when you do acknowledge suicides and argue that guns should be taken away to stop/reduce suicides, you open yourself to the critique I applied to you using the assisted suicides and abortion.
It's all relevant.
Your comments and all your finger pointing toward one side or the other always seems a little "over the top" to me, but humorous in a way, because if my "side" could be allowed better access to assisted suicides, there just might be less in the way of suicides by way of self-inflicted gun fire. The reduction of those numbers would be welcomed by your "side." Would they not?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
