Jamezz
Well-Known Member
Nice attempt at ridiculing my post by adding it in your signature, cucaracha.
Sorry gun advocates, you'll just have to suck it up
- Thread starter HighlandHomie
- Start date
Nice attempt at ridiculing my post by adding it in your signature, cucaracha.
I think what was so particularly shocking about this shooting was that it happened live, on the air - - and the killer took a video while he was shooting and posted it online.
Not to split hairs here, but would this be considered a mass shooting?
Not to split hairs here, but would this be considered a mass shooting?
Gun violence just happens to be the prevalent meme nowadays. Tomorrow it'll be something else. Nothing malicious about it. Issues fall in and out of public consciousnesses, and there is no harm in taking the opportunity to analyze them.
BTW, vehicular homicides have had their chance in the light as well. For example, drunk driving wasn't taken seriously at all when I was a kid. And it still isn't in a lot of places outside the US. But once the issue entered public consciousness, it turned into a moral one. Very few people are publicly comfortable bragging about their drunk-driving skills.
very true
and it is sort of ironic that you don't see anybody protesting laws restricting driving while impaired - - wonder what would've happened had that been a part of the Bill of Rights?
I don't think it should. The two were his intended targets.
framer
Well-Known Member
Name all the countries in the developed world with homicide rates over 7.7. I'll wait.
The best thing is that those numbers were taken in 2012. Imagine if it was done now, in 2015. Look at the numbers over the last three years. Lmfao.
https://www.economist.com/blogs/gra...ericas-guns?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/AmericasGuns
* The chart is "not comprehensive" what the hell is the point then? There were murders that happened locally in the 80's that certainly aren't listed there.
If you had the decency for courteous discourse you would simply ask this question instead of attaching implications and pejoratives to it several times. In fact, as a long time member you are well aware that I am the biggest advocate here of curing America's problem of inner city violence and poverty. But you're not interested in sincere discourse or actual cures to problems. You want to turn this place into a steaming pile of **** and get your kicks in trolling anyone who will give you an ear. Take your crap back to spurstalk and every other NBA forum you troll.
framer
Well-Known Member
And how will that address mass shootings? Need I remind you of this trend? Seems like it:
Legalizing weed won't address this.
Also, that increase (if we believe the "non-comprehensive" chart) upticks pretty concurrently with the rise of the 24 hour cable news cycle. Can anyone name the shooter from the McDonalds Shooting or the Luby's shooting? I'll bet most can remember the names of a lot of the shooters from Columbine forward. Stop memorializing these guys in the media. Stop trying to "understand" why they did what they did. If someone grabs a gun and shoots 5 people they will be known by all of America, even if it is as a villain. Stop giving those people that. . .
Also, the number of deaths caused by a firearm larger than a handgun has another interesting correlation...
https://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=3254
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
My first post to you was pejorative-free-- but either way, it's quite rich that you expect me to conduct non-inflammatory conversations with you when you do this with other posters here on Jazzfanz. How am I supposed to take you seriously when I see the posts that you type in response to ElRoacho?
I'm genuinely unaware of this.
I think I asked you 4 separate times in this thread for diseases, or cures to problems. You're being melodramatic.
Jazzfanz's biggest troll asking me to stop trolling. K.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Citation?
On this of course I agree. But this is simply one factor of many that need to be addressed in response to mass shootings.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
I don't think that anyone actually believes that reasonable, prudent gun control measures will wipe out gun violence. What we do think, however, is that it will reduce it at the margin, without eliminating anyone law abiding citizen's rights to owning guns (although not all forms of weaponry). The projected benefits is reduced loss of life and injury at a de minimus cost to gun, or would be, gun owners.
That a public policy does not solve a policy problem is not reason to argue against it--very, very few public problems lend themselves to being solved by a single policy. The question is whether the projected benefits exceed the projected costs. I believe they do, but ultimately I suppose it is an empirical question.
The problem is that we cannot discuss rationally even the most reasonable/prudent/measured policy because then the NRA and its legions of irrational gun nuts start yelling 'slippery slope' at the top of their lungs, and next thing you know, a very measured policy to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill becomes a nefarious government scheme to enslave the American population and impose Nazi-style tyranny on them.
It's not like America is the only country with inner city crime, action movies, crazy people, or nationalist.
The biggest reason is the ease of gun access, clearly.