[Bobboau]

the people who aren't listening already are the least likely to start now.

[karajorma]

Of course.

You get people who argue that exposing children to gay teachers is a clear and present danger having no issue with people openly carrying semi-automatic weapons. And you have people who feel that teenagers getting exposed to sex is basically an inevitability that can only be countered with sexual education to reduce pregnancies recoiling in horror at the idea of children being taught basic gun safety so as to prevent the ridiculous number of children killed in accidental shootings.

In the end, this isn't about making people safer. This is about being right. The rules we want must be enacted so that when the crime figures fall, we're proven correct. In no way should we attempt to find some middle ground. It's all or nothing.

[Grizzly]

Yeaaaah, no. Politics cannot be driven by raw emotions like that. Just look at your mind state here. Do you think any reasonable efficient legislation can come about from raw emotional disgust? I'm sorry, I really don't believe in that.

You are assuming that I am operating on raw emotional disgust. I am not, I am using strong wording. Look at your own arguments instead: Arguing for apathy by making snide assertions about your opponent's mind state? That's exactly the kind of discourse that prevents these discussions from happening.

Which is why I said that I don't think the rest of the world should bother with this. There are enough Americans who are okay with the state of affairs that it's going to carry on for the foreseeable future. There have been 142 mass murders (i.e shootings where 4 or more people were killed) since Sandy Hook. So in what way is it really news? Especially when you consider that by ignoring any future mass shootings, we're preventing the killers becoming world-famous. At best they'll be America-famous.

To be honest, the only thing that was in any way different about this was when Obama basically said that he couldn't do anything himself and that people need to help him. I doubt they'll listen this time though. Maybe if he says it enough.

Part of Obama's point was also that people seemed to have become numb on this. I think that problem lies in part in the media: One part of the media is arguing for the status quo because the slaughter of innocents is good headlines, one part of the media is arguing for the status quo becuase that's their idea of political neutrality. That's why Obama calls for media to actually start fact checking, to compare the stats of these incidents with terror attacks (for example), and question the current political enviroment (ya know, what they should be doing, being the fourth estate and all).

[headdie]

Yeaaaah, no. Politics cannot be driven by raw emotions like that. Just look at your mind state here. Do you think any reasonable efficient legislation can come about from raw emotional disgust? I'm sorry, I really don't believe in that.

You are assuming that I am operating on raw emotional disgust. I am not, I am using strong wording. Look at your own arguments instead: Arguing for apathy by making snide assertions about your opponent's mind state? That's exactly the kind of discourse that prevents these discussions from happening.

Which is why I said that I don't think the rest of the world should bother with this. There are enough Americans who are okay with the state of affairs that it's going to carry on for the foreseeable future. There have been 142 mass murders (i.e shootings where 4 or more people were killed) since Sandy Hook. So in what way is it really news? Especially when you consider that by ignoring any future mass shootings, we're preventing the killers becoming world-famous. At best they'll be America-famous.

To be honest, the only thing that was in any way different about this was when Obama basically said that he couldn't do anything himself and that people need to help him. I doubt they'll listen this time though. Maybe if he says it enough.

Part of Obama's point was also that people seemed to have become numb on this. I think that problem lies in part in the media: One part of the media is arguing for the status quo because the slaughter of innocents is good headlines, one part of the media is arguing for the status quo becuase that's their idea of political neutrality. That's why Obama calls for media to actually start fact checking, to compare the stats of these incidents with terror attacks (for example), and question the current political enviroment (ya know, what they should be doing, being the fourth estate and all).

An era that the media dosnt make politicians feel uncomfortable enough to discuss serious issues about the status quo when mass killings is the norm, is an era the media has collectively grossly failed in its social role of making politicians accountable to their public

[Luis Dias]

My comment was not a snide remark, it was on point. I also don't see the thread going anywhere. What is this talk about the media not giving crap to politicians? It's happening all the time. But when it happens, it's "liberal media" doing their usual "liberal nonsense", and when they're not, it's the media "failing the public, failing to be the fourth estate".

From my vantage point, it's a total stalemate that only serves the status quo.

IOW, it's usually a conversation that is not, it's two different tribes talking past each other right into their own echo chambers, each interaction proving to each tribe that they got it right (that the other tribe is "up to something, instead of solving the real issues", etc.).

Then, some other horror happens and one tribe will again go on an emotional rampage on how the other side is so inhumanly disregarding the horror of what's going on, and how "something has to be done, don't you dare tell me it doesn't". And thus the train of righteousness keeps going.

I mean, for instance, I gotta love how everyone just pretended that Goober didn't make his comment on the thing. And yet, until you americans start to realise you have to actually talk to each other, rather than talk past each other on how righteous you are, nothing will be achieved. And politicking with warm bodies.... is a bad start.

[karajorma]

Waiting for a calm down doesn't help though. Cause of this.



[attachment deleted by nobody]

[Grizzly]

I mean, for instance, I gotta love how everyone just pretended that Goober didn't make his comment on the thing. And yet, until you americans start to realise you have to actually talk to each other, rather than talk past each other on how righteous you are, nothing will be achieved. And politicking with warm bodies.... is a bad start.

Who exactly are you adressing with "You americans"?

Edit: As for Goober, well Oregon gives gun permits to anyone without a criminal record without a waiting period. I'm not sure by what metric that passes as "stricter then average".

[Luis Dias]

I'm addressing Americans. Not exactly nobel-level literature grammar there, I admit the way it is phrased made it a little ambiguous, but I don't think there's hardly any point in addressing that kind of comment to non-americans.

e: Regarding the Columbine effect, well OK. And if we correctly diagnose how completely innefectual that cycle is, how about stop doing the exact same thing all over again? Also, connect it with the PETA principle and you have dynamite (The more controversial something is, the more it gets talked about.)

[Akalabeth Angel]

I saw some quote on facebook from a journalist named Dan Hodges, he said:
"In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over"

Can't say I disagree.

[headdie]

I'm addressing Americans. Not exactly nobel-level literature grammar there, I admit the way it is phrased made it a little ambiguous, but I don't think there's hardly any point in addressing that kind of comment to non-americans.

Believe it or not this is at best very generalist and delves into the realm of racist along the lines of you French, you British, you Pakistani.

It also dosnt help in that it paints all Americans the same when like with the rest of the world there are extremes, there are moderates, there are undecided.  the issue is that American media and political culture as it stands promotes the taking of a clear position and sticking to that position with religious zeal which means that it is these people with the media spotlight and as such are the one's that need to be catered to as they affect the views of the more moderate/undecided.

e: Regarding the Columbine effect, well OK. And if we correctly diagnose how completely innefectual that cycle is, how about stop doing the exact same thing all over again? Also, connect it with the PETA principle and you have dynamite (The more controversial something is, the more it gets talked about.)

The point is that it reflects the current social/policical/media cycle which is indeed very ineffective at dealing with the problem hence why the cycle perpetuates.  The direction this discussion needs to head into and I believe what some here are trying to do is discuss how to break the cycle so that change can happen.



edit
fixed quotes

[Luis Dias]

What the hell are you talking about, headdie, it's "you americans" because it's an american problem at the end of the day. I cannot in any possible way help to solve it. It has to be americans talking to each other and try to get to a reasonable solution. Of course there are moderates, but the conversation was completely overtaken by loud extremists who are getting more and more polarized, I completely agree with you there.

Regarding the attempts to "break the cycle", well all I see are dejá vus. Whenever something terrible like this happens, everyone talks about it for a week or less, outrageously and waving their fists against "the other tribe" that is "enabling horror", and then they get frustrated that nothing is being done, and then they move on with their lives and to other problems.

[headdie]

Regarding the attempts to "break the cycle", well all I see are dejá vus. Whenever something terrible like this happens, everyone talks about it for a week or less, outrageously and waving their fists against "the other tribe" that is "enabling horror", and then they get frustrated that nothing is being done, and then they move on with their lives and to other problems.

And yet that ineffective mess is the cycle Kara pointed out,
1) bring the issue during the aftermath of one of these events and you are accused of making political capital off of the dead bodies
2) bring it up once everything calms down and you get apathetic meh responce
3) because nothing is done it happens again
4) go back to point 1)

Breaking this cycle is the key, but to break it you need to break the zellous politics that surrounds guns in the US

[Luis Dias]

Well I'm all hears about this new "break-the-cycle" Crucible-like weapon.

[AtomicClucker]

Whether people are anti or pro doesn't matter, what does is the political jockeying and politicking. Warm corpses makes a good political mound - and a nice place to stab a political flag into.

What boggles me is the increasing timidness people have to these sort of shootings. It's like lining people up in a chicken coop waiting to be strangled by the proverbial fox.

Some would say I'm making a logical leap, but I'm going to go ahead and say the problem is that people are being mollified and made into sheep rather than being taught to react and minimize collateral.

I'm for increasing mental background checks and tightening up mental health rules, but I'm also of the growing opinion that despite all the tragedies, we aren't teaching people how to cope and minimize these sort of evens. Whether it be a personal with their own sidearm for defense, or a group working to take down the gunmen - the reaction seems to be a timid meh among the populace. And I'm definitely going to say our current crop of college students seem more like fated idiots to die in a horror movie. The current agenda is tell people they have to be afraid and cower - not to start defending themselves.

If one thing riles me up, is the idea that many pro/anti gun advocates seem to think we are pathetic, little frail lambs, who cannot defend themselves. And that's what I find more frightening when people are being told that they cannot and should not take precautions to reduce problems like this. It's better to pro-active and prepare for the worst, rather then cower in a corner to be shot pathetically. Attempting to ban weapons won't solve this and these sort of thing will continue because American's don't take mental stability seriously. In fact, in the wake of trigger warnings and microaggressions, we're actually afraid ot it.

[X3N0-Life-Form]

What needs to be done is to allow teachers to carry weapons for self-defense, which is their constitutional right.  Every time mass shooters have been confronted with resistance, they have either surrendered or killed themselves.

(emphasis mine)

Man, if your teachers are anything like ours, I sure as hell don't want them to have access to anykind of firearms, I'd much rather have security guards with a gun cabinet in case of emergency instead.

[Grizzly]

What needs to be done is to allow teachers to carry weapons for self-defense, which is their constitutional right.  Every time mass shooters have been confronted with resistance, they have either surrendered or killed themselves.

(emphasis mine)

Man, if your teachers are anything like ours, I sure as hell don't want them to have access to anykind of firearms, I'd much rather have security guards with a gun cabinet in case of emergency instead.

You can take exactly one guess to what happened to the security guard present on the island where the 2011 norway attacks took place...

[Bobboau]

What boggles me is the increasing timidness people have to these sort of shootings. It's like lining people up in a chicken coop waiting to be strangled by the proverbial fox.

Some would say I'm making a logical leap, but I'm going to go ahead and say the problem is that people are being mollified and made into sheep rather than being taught to react and minimize collateral.

I'm for increasing mental background checks and tightening up mental health rules, but I'm also of the growing opinion that despite all the tragedies, we aren't teaching people how to cope and minimize these sort of evens. Whether it be a personal with their own sidearm for defense, or a group working to take down the gunmen - the reaction seems to be a timid meh among the populace. And I'm definitely going to say our current crop of college students seem more like fated idiots to die in a horror movie. The current agenda is tell people they have to be afraid and cower - not to start defending themselves.

related

American's don't take mental stability seriously. In fact, in the wake of trigger warnings and microaggressions, we're actually afraid ot it.

hey-now, don't be ableist.

[Bobboau]

and "break the cycle" is only something you have to do if you are dissatisfied with the status quo, if you find the current trade off acceptable that cycle ensures you get to keep things the way you like them. If you are trying to change things, sure the loss of life is regrettable and it would be nice to find a way to reduce that, it does keep the librul gubament off your guns. It's just the price of freedom.

[AtomicClucker]

Well, 2nd Amendment rights and all. Even if we were to cut off the flow of weapons, people can and will still go crazy or commit crimes like this for infamy.

I also run under the assumption as long as humanity persists, there will always be certain elements and criminal mindsets that will never change, no matter the tools on hand.

People killing each other will not change and the criminally minded will happily find different tools to commit such atrocities. I think we should start working on engendering a sense of defense back into people - that they can take actions that make a difference. More often than not, it's not so much the guns, but this idea "we cannot defend ourselves" type of line approached by some more leftist commentators bugs me. It's not a question of whether or not you've a gun for self defense - but what you can do to defend, protect, and save others.

Why are some people big on guns? For them, it represents an aegis that can protect themselves. But it goes without saying that we can defend ourselves without having guns.

Because the more I look at it, I feel that the coverage tries to paint victims as helpless, pathetic creatures who need some politicking to save them - quite often more than not, the news stories that don't get widely covered with shootings are people thinking quickly and taking choices to reduce the harm. People being heroes doesn't promote news, body bags and agendas do. And with how the Left has literally flown off the rails, it seems that many pro/anti advocates conveniently forget that normal people can and have methods to save lives, while not necessarily supporting or promoting pointless idealogues.

[GhylTarvoke]

I agree with Luis. What really frustrates me - not just in gun control debates - is that very often, neither side addresses the other side's points, or even acknowledges that the other side has any points. (Quick self-test: if you need to ask what the other side's points are, then you're probably guilty of this.) They either reiterate their own points more and more loudly, or brandish recent events that support their position. We need a dialogue, not two monologues.

I may be preaching to the choir.