Don't mean squat. We are insane and I feel truly helpless and hopeless.
Insanity, beyond understanding. What will it take?
Someone wrote a manifesto against immigration, planned to kill immigrants who are invading the country, drove hours to go to a place where those immigrants are, then opened fire and killed many of them... and politicians are calling it a case of "mental health problems" (Bernie Sanders) and an issue with video games (House minority leader).
At least the FBI is calling it what it is: domestic terrorism. But background checks and mental health evaluations are not how anyone would respond if this shooter had been inspired by Al Qaeda instead of 8chan (or Breitbart). Which means we'll not have an effective response (or any response) and so it's only a matter of time until more people are similarly "inspired" to take action.
I"m both praying for the victims and their families, and that there will be a leader somwhere who stands against the evil of hatred and the will to kill those who, for whatever reason, seem different, threatening, more successful, or simply unwanted to unstable, willingly cruel individuals.
I agree the situation in its entirity is insane, but there was too much planning and intentional action evidenced to call the shooters in Mississippi, California, Texas, or Ohio this week "insane."
It's that very intentionality and will to carry out a plan that bother me the most.
And the sense that some, at least, will resonate with some aspects of those plans--and even make, or carry out, more such plans--is infuriating.
M.
I don't feel up to searching the old fora now, but remember a wise forumite once predicting that real change will require that everyone be personally affected by such a shooting.
I hope that is wrong. I'm afraid that it's true.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html)
Allowing nearly unlimited civilian access to military-grade weapons is insane.
My NP's twitter feed is showing people in El Paso lining up to give blood.
Community groups are trying to provide support for those affected on-the-ground.
The assailant procured his weapon legally, and the shooting will be treated as domestic terrorism (a phrase that bothers me, on its own terms) per this report:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/el-paso-shooting-being-treated-domestic-terrorism-police-say-suspect-n1039076
The morality associated with the death penalty will also come into the issue, since those charges carry mortal repercussions as well.
-=-=-=-
I'm more stunned by the situation in Dayton, having been raised nearby in Columbus.
The cause is less clear, although a family member was among those killed....domestic violence in a different sense, perhaps.
Making theater of one's anger, perhaps.
M.
Quote from: mamselle on August 04, 2019, 04:07:36 PM
My NP's twitter feed is showing people in El Paso lining up to give blood.
Community groups are trying to provide support for those affected on-the-ground.
The assailant procured his weapon legally, and the shooting will be treated as domestic terrorism (a phrase that bothers me, on its own terms) per this report:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/el-paso-shooting-being-treated-domestic-terrorism-police-say-suspect-n1039076
The morality associated with the death penalty will also come into the issue, since those charges carry mortal repercussions as well.
-=-=-=-
I'm more stunned by the situation in Dayton, having been raised nearby in Columbus.
The cause is less clear, although a family member was among those killed....domestic violence in a different sense, perhaps.
Making theater of one's anger, perhaps.
M.
Apparently, he, his sister, and her male companion drove together, and he killed his sister and wounded her companion before gunning down others. The male companion lived, and is talking with police. I'm wondering if the male companion was a person of color.
Quote from: aside on August 04, 2019, 07:29:14 AM
Insanity, beyond understanding. What will it take?
If Americans won't rally for gun control after a bunch of white elementary school children were murdered in their classrooms, they're certainly not going to do it for a bunch of brown walmart shoppers.
This is the country we live it. It loves guns more than children.
Four thoughts on this horrific weekend:
I agree that until every single person knows someone killed nothing will change. Except I'm afraid by that point we will have become completely immune to the violence.
I used to wonder how people lived in areas where suicide bombing was common. Now I know.
When can the President be charged with inciting violence?
I thought this weekend if a brave family of a slain loved one agreed to show the pictures of this carnage it might make a difference, much like Emmett Till's mother. And that would be horrific.
Yes, shock-TV, murder mysteries, reality-survival "games" have all gotten there first.
I tried to suggest to my friend's 5-yr-old that we not play the video game in which two little kids in a boat shoot-to-kill pirates and other dressed-up "bad guys."
"Oh, it's not real," he said. "They always come back..."
M.
Quote from: reener06 on August 05, 2019, 06:47:49 AM
When can the President be charged with inciting violence?
Oh, give me a break. Should Sanders be charged for "inciting" the violence against the Republican baseball team? Should the Left in general be charged with "inciting" any and all violence against white people?
Quote from: irhack on August 05, 2019, 05:23:51 AM
Quote from: aside on August 04, 2019, 07:29:14 AM
Insanity, beyond understanding. What will it take?
If Americans won't rally for gun control after a bunch of white elementary school children were murdered in their classrooms, they're certainly not going to do it for a bunch of brown walmart shoppers.
This is the country we live it. It loves guns more than children.
Quote from: Thursday's_Child on August 04, 2019, 10:13:07 AM
I don't feel up to searching the old fora now, but remember a wise forumite once predicting that real change will require that everyone be personally affected by such a shooting.
I hope that is wrong. I'm afraid that it's true.
IIRC, Congress was personally affected by two such shootings. They still aren't doing anything.
At this point, I'm not sure what can be done even if the NRA influence is removed. I feel like there is a poison at the heart of our country. I am extremely dubious about those flag-worshipping types but the truth is I'm a little envious. To me, a country that won't defend its weak and its children is worth very little.
It just occurred to me that, once again, learning Spanish is now an act of political solidarity with those in need of support.
I recall the move towards bi-and tri-lingual hymns a generation ago, when El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Tieneman Square were in the news.
Seems as if we're there again.
I wonder what might have happened if more Germans had learned Yiddish (which in some ways resembles German speech and vocabulary patterns)? I don't think Hebrew was much spoken in the 1930s, anywhere, but linguistic solidarity is one way to both stand with others, morally, and be available to help them practically as well.
M.
Quote from: permanent imposter on August 05, 2019, 10:25:32 AM
IIRC, Congress was personally affected by two such shootings. They still aren't doing anything.
<snip>
Warning! Potentially inflammatory comment!
Lets not conflate "people" and "congress". The majority of politicians are far more responsive to lobbyists and other special interests than to individual or groups of voters because $$$$$$$$$$$$$!
Hence, the old definition from Ambrose Bierce: "A politician is an arse, upon which everything has sat but a man."
I don't know how to break congress into actually doing the will of the voters - it won't be easy or simple.
Possibly Gabby Gifford is among the members of Congress being referred to, as someone directly affected by gun-inflicted violence.
M.
Here's how this looks to someone who is not American born, but has lived here in the land of the screed and the home of the rave for 20 odd years. I think I understand most of the American context, but even so, I suspect I see it differently than most US born. I don't intend to inflame passions and arguments, but it's possible I may do so.
In my sub-discipline, we are taught to look for upstream causes for problems. Gun control proposals, trigger locks, liability insurance reforms etc. are more of a down stream solution.
American culture has always made it clear that this is the most important country in the world. As a consequence, there is no small number of Americans that have an over-inflated sense of their own importance.
Globalization has done much to winnow populations into winners and losers. Social media allows winners to find and associate with other winners and losers can find losers.
Between Facebook, Instagram and other social platforms, a whole lot of social media is people screaming to get attention, to go viral, to be an influencer. Social media took the old childhood cry of,"Hey Mom! Look at me!" and functionally weaponized it.
Losers with a sense of grievance and with the over-inflated sense of importance noted above, will associate with like minded fellows (they're nearly all white men) and discuss a means of redress.
Gun violence and gun availability are pretty much baked into the cake of the American character. 50 years of movies and television make it clear that guns are the solution to a whole lot of problems. Toy guns remain a popular childhood toy and send an early message about their value to children.
Now you take an aggrieved white guy who is looking for redress, let him consort with like minded fellows [whether incels, white nationalists, BLM activists [Dallas police shooting] or Islamic jihadis (San Bernadino city employees)] and give him access to military grade weaponry, you don't have to be The Amazing Kreskin to predict what's going to happen.
The solution to this is probably going to be multi-factorial, but to my mind it should start in the primary school classroom. If kids learn early how to resolve conflict, if they learn early that guns are not a good way to solve problems, and if our political and economic system does a better job of minimizing losers, and if we can teach kids to be critical and intelligent consumers of internet boards and social media, then perhaps we will see a positive change. It's going to take 30 years and it may not work.
But the usual arguments we're having have clearly not worked,
I'm not holding my breath on this but it's what I have.
I'd add to that the narrative of individual self-actualization projected onto "The Shot Heard 'Round the World," and the masculinist view of Manifest Destiny as described in "The Lay of the Land" and conclude that we are in the throes of what is essentially a national type of domestic violence: force, threats, and harm aimed at those who are, truly 'our own.'
M.
Quote from: mamselle on August 04, 2019, 04:07:36 PM
My NP's twitter feed is showing people in El Paso lining up to give blood.
Far better to line up to vote... and of course, vote for the party that promises change on this issue. The NRA has too much power over politicians.
It's so sad. The complete lack of political will to confront the NRA and do something is still shocking to me (as a non-American).
Quote from: writingprof on August 05, 2019, 09:49:46 AM
Quote from: reener06 on August 05, 2019, 06:47:49 AM
When can the President be charged with inciting violence?
Oh, give me a break. Should Sanders be charged for "inciting" the violence against the Republican baseball team? Should the Left in general be charged with "inciting" any and all violence against white people?
If you can draw the same type of direct link between Sanders' speech and the baseball team shooter, then sure! You'd have to decide upon some standard of proof---e.g., screeds that directly copy Sanders' speech, or chants of violence at Sanders' rallies, or direct appeals by Sanders to beat up protestors---but if other politicians are inciting gun violence the way Trump is, then they should be held accountable.
Maybe the fear of prosecution should some wacko shoot up a grocery store in their name will encourage them to get behind gun violence prevention. Or at the very least it would encourage them to be more moderate in their speech, and to shut down violent tendencies in their public appearances.
I get very annoyed with people acting as if 'What if a Democrat did it?' is some sort of gotcha when I criticize Republicans. It's as if they believe that we don't really think sexual misconduct/racism/financial skullduggery/child sex trafficking/incitement to murder/obstruction of justice/treason are bad; and we just pretend to think that as an excuse to bring down the other party. It's really not. Those things are bad, no matter who does them. I'm glad Frankin stepped down, and I'm very disappointed that people laid off Ralph Northam and he's still in office. How is that hard to understand?
Quote from: secundem_artem on August 05, 2019, 12:18:58 PM
Here's how this looks to someone who is not American born, but has lived here in the land of the screed and the home of the rave for 20 odd years. I think I understand most of the American context, but even so, I suspect I see it differently than most US born. I don't intend to inflame passions and arguments, but it's possible I may do so.
In my sub-discipline, we are taught to look for upstream causes for problems. Gun control proposals, trigger locks, liability insurance reforms etc. are more of a down stream solution.
American culture has always made it clear that this is the most important country in the world. As a consequence, there is no small number of Americans that have an over-inflated sense of their own importance.
Globalization has done much to winnow populations into winners and losers. Social media allows winners to find and associate with other winners and losers can find losers.
Between Facebook, Instagram and other social platforms, a whole lot of social media is people screaming to get attention, to go viral, to be an influencer. Social media took the old childhood cry of,"Hey Mom! Look at me!" and functionally weaponized it.
Losers with a sense of grievance and with the over-inflated sense of importance noted above, will associate with like minded fellows (they're nearly all white men) and discuss a means of redress.
Gun violence and gun availability are pretty much baked into the cake of the American character. 50 years of movies and television make it clear that guns are the solution to a whole lot of problems. Toy guns remain a popular childhood toy and send an early message about their value to children.
Now you take an aggrieved white guy who is looking for redress, let him consort with like minded fellows [whether incels, white nationalists, BLM activists [Dallas police shooting] or Islamic jihadis (San Bernadino city employees)] and give him access to military grade weaponry, you don't have to be The Amazing Kreskin to predict what's going to happen.
The solution to this is probably going to be multi-factorial, but to my mind it should start in the primary school classroom. If kids learn early how to resolve conflict, if they learn early that guns are not a good way to solve problems, and if our political and economic system does a better job of minimizing losers, and if we can teach kids to be critical and intelligent consumers of internet boards and social media, then perhaps we will see a positive change. It's going to take 30 years and it may not work.
But the usual arguments we're having have clearly not worked,
I'm not holding my breath on this but it's what I have.
This analysis is quite solid, but the phrase "let him consort with like minded fellows" seems to betray a lack of familiarity with the American political system. Presumably we're all aware of the freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment (as interpreted by the Supreme Court in
NAACP v. Alabama).
The issue, I think, is not
whether such consorting will take place but
where. In my opinion, the Left has erred gravely by erecting a politics of racial identity but driving even the very mildest white-male group solidarity underground. If the dudebros can't even listen to
Jordan Peterson without being told that they're racist and sexist, they will simply recongregate on 8chan in relative anonymity. If 8chan is disbanded, they will find somewhere else. This is what happens when the Left
bans the argument instead of
winning it. Merely attaching public opprobrium to a point of view doesn't eliminate it; it just ensures that the point of view will be honed out of the public eye, where civilization might have modified it.
Quote from: writingprof on August 06, 2019, 06:29:18 AM
Merely attaching public opprobrium to a point of view doesn't eliminate it; it just ensures that the point of view will be honed out of the public eye, where civilization might have modified it.
x1000
This applies in politics, religion, and any other place where people may disagree about anything.
Largely true, although the performative process of honing arguments about hatred and violence in public has a disproportionately inflammatory effect on those already so inclined, to the point of encouraging same.
Talking about peace and inclusivity probably doesn't have quite the same deleterious effect on the behavior and the mindset of others.
M.
Disclaimer: I spend a lot of professional time with military thinkers and other national-security-minded folks. I am not a party to the actual decisions on policy, yet I do have to understand that mindset. The following post reflects views that others here are unlikely to regularly encounter. I provide this post in hopes that more information might help people understand why certain national/state level decisions are not made, even with good people making a lot of effort to have their voices heard by their lawmakers on the importance of being safe in public places.
Quote from: secundem_artem on August 05, 2019, 12:18:58 PM
Now you take an aggrieved white guy who is looking for redress, let him consort with like minded fellows [whether incels, white nationalists, BLM activists [Dallas police shooting] or Islamic jihadis (San Bernadino city employees)] and give him access to military grade weaponry, you don't have to be The Amazing Kreskin to predict what's going to happen.
When one considers the possibilities available to disrupt the workings of large portions of the US in meaningful ways for at least a year, one human being armed with the best guns money can buy is very low on the scale of disruption.
Even if the goal is a large body count to make a point that will hit the international news, one human being armed with the best military grade guns is still very low on the scale on how many bodies at one time will be downed.
Neil deGrasse Tyson took a lot of flack for pointing out how many other deaths from other preventable sources occurred over the weekend (https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/08/06/critics-say-neil-degrasse-tyson-should-stick-astrophysics-after-his-tweets-about-mass-shootings/). However, people who do research on what's really possible for a literate human being with 3 months of planning, $500, and access to a grocery store, let alone 20-50 people who have significantly more money and actual backgrounds in some combination of military, physics, chemistry, biology, transportation, utilities production/transmission, and physical/virtual cybersecurity, will never give high priority to the downstream problem of access to guns to achieve safety in public places.
Addressing the upstream problems of why someone acts to kill many other strangers for no tactical advantage is a much better use of resources to preserve the nation's daily functionings, especially if the resources ameliorate other societal problems. The downstream response of hardening infrastructure against attacks is a much better use of resources if the goal is to keep the daily lives of hundreds of millions of Americans humming along.
That infrastructure hardening is one reason Cybercom was elevated to the same level as Stratcom last year in recognition of the importance that cyberspace plays in normal US daily economic and other functions (http://www.dodlive.mil/2018/05/03/cybercom-to-become-dods-10th-unified-combatant-command/).
Recent news that didn't get very much attention in the popular media, but is surely circulating in many DC and related high circles include:
- US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) has been shutdown for not following protocol. Those are the folks who work with the CDC to help keep us safe against the next pandemic https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/cdc-shuts-down-army-labs-disease-research-66235
- The US left the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty as a direct result of Russia doing recent tests https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49198565
- North Korea has fired two unidentified missiles, its fourth such launch in less than two weeks https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49244654
Yes, every human life lost this weekend due to violence is a tragedy. However, gun legislation cannot be a high priority for the big-picture goal of keeping normal Americans safe to go about their lives today and the foreseeable future in a scary world with bad people who want to kill us.
It's already illegal to kill other human beings in the US; that's why capital murder is a thing. Another law that addresses downstream will be either ineffective due to how many guns already exist in the US in the hands of private citizens or could push someone to another step on the lethality options available to a determined someone who does a little research on how to kill a lot of people with items that are readily available for commercial sale in the US because they have other valuable uses.
I think Tyson's comments were simply dreadful. It lowered my opinion of him quite a bit. Stick to Astrophysics, science guy. His comments weren't just thoughtless, they were heartless. Or, quoth the Lebowsky meme, "You're not wrong. You're just an asshole."
I consider these mass shootings acts of domestic terrorism. So, let's treat them as such - there sure are resources for fighting that, right? RIGHT??
Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on August 06, 2019, 04:16:45 PM
I consider these mass shootings acts of domestic terrorism. So, let's treat them as such - there sure are resources for fighting that, right? RIGHT??
Yes, resources exist.
Those resources are better used by hardening infrastructure than by passing more gun legislation. Most people won't be aware of that hardening, because sharing the details publicly means giving information to the very people looking for weaknesses or exploitable gaps.
Those resources are better used by following up on reports of someone making credible threats than imposing more restrictions on the general population. Again, sharing the details of who is watching what where and how as well as how many credible threats are neutralized every day means giving that same information to the bad guys. When the system fails, everyone knows. When the system quietly succeeds, the public doesn't know what resources were brought to bear to have another day of domestic peace.
The resources are better used to fix upstream problems as secundem_artem wrote. It's likely that those resources will not be publicly labeled as "we're addressing poverty in this area by X because that reduces domestic terrorism", but my quatloos are that's one reason certain areas get more public money than they otherwise might. People who have good enough life circumstances tend to not go to violence. What good enough means sometimes is "withdraw most of the government and just stop poking the sore spot daily for those folks who want to live on the remote land and be left alone".
The US government has classification guidelines because some information cannot be shared with the US people at large due to the likelihood of bad people using that information to harm the US people. That's why the White House ignoring the process to get access to classified information was a big, big deal. People who haven't had adequate training and have oddities in their personal/professional background are generally not allowed access because they tend not to buy into the idea of need-to-know.
Interesting comments here.
Writing prof - I may have worded my post awkwardly. It's not as if I think people have to be allowed to consort with each other - I am aware of freedom of association as described in the Constitution. Anybody who wants to consort with Jordan Peterson is free to do so.
Captain Beefheart (you know who you are) - I just thought Tyson's comments were more clumsy than anything else. He spends his days using science/data/numbers to help people process risk and this was one example where, even though he is correct, numbers are not helpful.
polly - It sounds like you've gone to work for Dr. Strangelove!
I recently had the opportunity to present to "a government agency" on a topic that, on the face of it, did not appear to have much relationship to the business of that agency. After some thought however, what I was asked to do was consistent with some of what you posted regarding upstream causes - in this case all the way upstream to the headwaters.
As for hardening infrastructure, my cynical self sees much of that as simply a function of there being very good money in doing so. I realize that a lot of it goes unseen by us hoi polloi but such as I have seen does not inspire confidence. They've hardened airline infrastructure to the point that it's easier to get a camera into the Kremlin than it is to get on a plane to Albuquerque.
Quote from: secundem_artem on August 06, 2019, 07:12:58 PM
polly - It sounds like you've gone to work for Dr. Strangelove!
We have discussed the salt mine gap!
The airport thing is a hilarious example of wasted resources that are for show to reassure the public and to dissuade the poor planners instead of being effective based on research. People far less frequently think about access to the water supply.
Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on August 06, 2019, 04:16:45 PM
I think Tyson's comments were simply dreadful. It lowered my opinion of him quite a bit. Stick to Astrophysics, science guy. His comments weren't just thoughtless, they were heartless. Or, quoth the Lebowsky meme, "You're not wrong. You're just an asshole."
I consider these mass shootings acts of domestic terrorism. So, let's treat them as such - there sure are resources for fighting that, right? RIGHT??
Tyson was referring to dread risk. While some mass shootings generate lots of media headlines, publicity of and public reaction to them vary according to location, number killed, characteristics of the killer, etc. But on average there are > 10,000 gun homicides annually. Generally, no one bats an eye. So that's three 9/11s every year since 2001. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a result of policy decisions by the national government, have cost, by most estimates, somewhere between 2.5 and 5.0 trillion dollars to date. As Tyson alludes to, a big chunk of that money could have been spent much more effectively -- in terms of making the U.S. a safer, happier, more secure place, on things like immunizations, suicide prevention, reform of the criminal justice system, education, etc.
Along the lines of what secondem_artum wrote, American exceptionalism is reaching the end of its road, and so has its constituent component, American white male exceptionalism. There is an interesting statement in today's IHE column (https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/guys-basements) by a New Jersey community college dean, about the difficulty of convincing males in their 20s and 30s to pursue higher education: "Their connections to institutions other than their families tend to be attenuated at best." The title of the column? "Guys in Basements."
Quote from: spork on August 07, 2019, 04:18:30 AM
Along the lines of what secondem_artum wrote, American exceptionalism is reaching the end of its road, and so has its constituent component, American white male exceptionalism. There is an interesting statement in today's IHE column (https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/guys-basements) by a New Jersey community college dean, about the difficulty of convincing males in their 20s and 30s to pursue higher education: "Their connections to institutions other than their families tend to be attenuated at best." The title of the column? "Guys in Basements."
They have that phenomenon elsewhere too - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori) - without the mass murder (maybe, just maybe - because access to guns is more tightly controlled in other countries?)
I'm with Paul Bloom generally on empathy, (i.e. against it as a basis for public policy). I'm also with the Stoics in using reason to reduce fear and get risks in perspective. So I'm sympathetic to Tyson's efforts. But his comments were ill-timed.
It is obvious that we could change the laws and policy to reduce the number of mass-murders, murders, accidental deaths from guns (~600 per year in the US), and suicide by firearm (~10,000 per year in the US), if there were a political will to do so. It's a problem that these changes are resisted by the politicians with the power to make changes. It is worth bearing in mind that none of these are among the 10 leading causes of preventable deaths in the US, and there are dangers of far greater disruptions to everyday life, as Polly explains. None of that takes away from the arguments for more gun control.
But the current focus of the media is nationalism, racism, and fascism. They are also my main current concerns now. I'm not sure what it means to say that American exceptionalism is reaching the end of its road -- it seems to me that it could run and run.
People are absolutely right to wonder how these things can happen to innocent people just going about their daily lives and to want government action taken to make us all safer. However, what those government actions should be in light of the current realities that make the US different from current realities in other first world countries is something worth discussing with data.
For those who like data, I recommend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019
The map at the top shows patterns that require very little extra data to draw some conclusions related to effectiveness of proposals being floated to address gun violence. In particular, a few other maps may be useful: https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-ownership-by-state-2015-7 and https://www.concealedcarry.com/america-gun-maps-law-politics-permit/.
The table near the bottom of the Wikipedia page also shows some patterns that could be used to do some correlation and hypothesis testing related to data.
For those who are interested in domestic terrorism, I suggest doing some web searches on high profile incidents from the past 30 years on what one or two determined people can do with a little planning and compare those numbers to the typical numbers for an incident on the list at the bottom of the Wikipedia mass shootings page.
I also will mention that if we don't trust our government to be working in our best interest, then I wonder about the logic involved to propose that only the government be allowed to have guns and that more laws be passed to criminalize currently legal activities with resources devoted to checking that people step up and obey all the new laws. Again, murder by any mechanism is already illegal in the US and yet people are doing it. Imagine the resources required to get enough guns out of circulation in the US to make true progress on limiting supply.
Quote from: polly_mer on August 07, 2019, 06:04:07 AM
Imagine the resources required to get enough guns out of circulation in the US to make true progress on limiting supply.
Translation: Don't bother trying, it's too hard! <shrug shoulders>
There's no quick fix but doing nothing and expecting a different result is not a bad definition for insanity.
Australia managed to ban assault rifles (https://globalnews.ca/news/3784603/australia-gun-control-ban/) against a strong resistance following a rise of mass shootings.
(Cue a wall o' text about how "that is different.")
American exceptionalism my ass. The only thing I see us exceptional at these days is deluding ourselves that we are truly exceptional.
Again: I thought Americans were all about grit and determination and making hard decisions. Sure doesn't seem that way today.
Rant off.
Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on August 06, 2019, 04:16:45 PM
I think Tyson's comments were simply dreadful. It lowered my opinion of him quite a bit. Stick to Astrophysics, science guy. His comments weren't just thoughtless, they were heartless. Or, quoth the Lebowsky meme, "You're not wrong. You're just an asshole."
I consider these mass shootings acts of domestic terrorism. So, let's treat them as such - there sure are resources for fighting that, right? RIGHT??
He was absolutely right and should not apologize. You are more likely to die in a car crash than a mass shooting. Where is the outrage for that, the demands to "do something?" When are we going to get serious about zero tolerance traffic enforcement of traffic laws?
Also, if he should stick to Astrophysics, then the celebrities who speak out should stick to acting and singing, right?
I think the issue of weapons is larger than simply....weapons. Because El Duce feels the need to turn out his base in large numbers for his 2020 re-election, he caters to their basest urges. His rhetoric is not directly responsible for Gilroy or El Paso, but I do strongy believe that such rhetoric from the President of the United States makes it easier for the shooters to act; it justifies, to them, their own evil urges.
If we consider weapons in this larger context, of increasing right wing violence, fanned by El Duce, then it rises above Polly Mer's comments, although I don't disagree with them.
DeGrasse Tyson has a history of making inane remarks, especially about fields of study far outside his specialization.
Quote from: Descartes on August 07, 2019, 07:51:10 AM
He was absolutely right and should not apologize. You are more likely to die in a car crash than a mass shooting. Where is the outrage for that, the demands to "do something?" When are we going to get serious about zero tolerance traffic enforcement of traffic laws?
On the gun issue, this comment seems especially thoughtless because all those other things are issues we take
a lot of steps to prevent happening on a wider scale. That's why, for example, there are so many traffic laws, so much traffic enforcement, licenses, registration, insurance, etc. Guns, however, are one issue for which Americans are willing to do almost
nothing, but just about everyone else
in the world does lots, and with
very positive results. While we certainly don't properly compute risk, especially risk associated with our daily activities, we do collectively take a lot of steps to minimize most of that risk. But to put the point this way looks to me like it amounts to a call to do nothing, which is stupid.
Quote from: Descartes on August 07, 2019, 07:51:10 AM
Also, if he should stick to Astrophysics, then the celebrities who speak out should stick to acting and singing, right?
That's not much of a reductio, because I think everyone agrees that
should be the case where discussions of substance requiring specific expertise are concerned. The world would be a better place if celebrities weren't pushing miracle cures and cults.
Quote from: Descartes on August 07, 2019, 07:51:10 AM
Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on August 06, 2019, 04:16:45 PM
I think Tyson's comments were simply dreadful. It lowered my opinion of him quite a bit. Stick to Astrophysics, science guy. His comments weren't just thoughtless, they were heartless. Or, quoth the Lebowsky meme, "You're not wrong. You're just an asshole."
I consider these mass shootings acts of domestic terrorism. So, let's treat them as such - there sure are resources for fighting that, right? RIGHT??
He was absolutely right and should not apologize. You are more likely to die in a car crash than a mass shooting. Where is the outrage for that, the demands to "do something?"
Well, we have laws about seat belts and distracted driving and drunk driving and speed limits and signalling turns and reckless driving and traffic lights and coming to complete stops at stop signs. We have written and practical tests before you can get a driver's license. All of these provisions minimize the risk of incompetent drivers, control the flow of traffic, and reduce your risk of dying in crashes. We're doing quite a lot already, and I'd be very happy of guns were regulated as well as cars.
QuoteWhen are we going to get serious about zero tolerance traffic enforcement of traffic laws?
People of color would be happy to explain how zero-tolerance cops are about enforcing traffic laws.
Quote from: ergative on August 07, 2019, 11:19:59 AM
Quote from: Descartes on August 07, 2019, 07:51:10 AM
Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on August 06, 2019, 04:16:45 PM
I think Tyson's comments were simply dreadful. It lowered my opinion of him quite a bit. Stick to Astrophysics, science guy. His comments weren't just thoughtless, they were heartless. Or, quoth the Lebowsky meme, "You're not wrong. You're just an asshole."
I consider these mass shootings acts of domestic terrorism. So, let's treat them as such - there sure are resources for fighting that, right? RIGHT??
He was absolutely right and should not apologize. You are more likely to die in a car crash than a mass shooting. Where is the outrage for that, the demands to "do something?"
Well, we have laws about seat belts and distracted driving and drunk driving and speed limits and signalling turns and reckless driving and traffic lights and coming to complete stops at stop signs. We have written and practical tests before you can get a driver's license. All of these provisions minimize the risk of incompetent drivers, control the flow of traffic, and reduce your risk of dying in crashes. We're doing quite a lot already, and I'd be very happy of guns were regulated as well as cars.
QuoteWhen are we going to get serious about zero tolerance traffic enforcement of traffic laws?
People of color would be happy to explain how zero-tolerance cops are about enforcing traffic laws.
There is also a fundamental difference in that driving serves an important function in modern life and the associated deaths are an unfortunate consequence. Likewise, there will always be work place accidents that kill people, but obviously we cannot stop working. In both cases, laws are enacted to minimize deaths and damage and enforced based on available resources.
In the case of military grade weapons, they do not serve a daily function and there is absolutely no reason most people need them or should have access. Even if you subscribe to the right to bear arms, that does not mean there should not be strict regulations and steps required to enact those rights or restrictions placed on the types of guns that you can have. I really done see how the second amendment is automatically interpreted as unfettered access to guns for all, it's literally insane.
The USA has always baffled me on so many levels. You are generous and the most charitable nation on Earth, yet have huge problems with inequality and access to basic health care. You are the most technologically advanced nation on Earth, yet you still use the imperial system for some unknown reason and fail to listen to scientists/researcher about climate change, gun violence, the efficacy of sex ed., etc. There is definitely something exceptional about the USA but I dont think we are using the word in the same manner.
Quote from: Kron3007 on August 07, 2019, 01:47:39 PM
The USA has always baffled me on so many levels. You are generous and the most charitable nation on Earth, yet have huge problems with inequality and access to basic health care. You are the most technologically advanced nation on Earth, yet you still use the imperial system for some unknown reason and fail to listen to scientists/researcher about climate change, gun violence, the efficacy of sex ed., etc. There is definitely something exceptional about the USA but I dont think we are using the word in the same manner.
You and me both. And I've lived here my whole life.
Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on August 07, 2019, 06:32:43 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on August 07, 2019, 06:04:07 AM
Imagine the resources required to get enough guns out of circulation in the US to make true progress on limiting supply.
Translation: Don't bother trying, it's too hard! <shrug shoulders>
There's no quick fix but doing nothing and expecting a different result is not a bad definition for insanity.
Australia managed to ban assault rifles (https://globalnews.ca/news/3784603/australia-gun-control-ban/) against a strong resistance following a rise of mass shootings.
(Cue a wall o' text about how "that is different.")
American exceptionalism my ass. The only thing I see us exceptional at these days is deluding ourselves that we are truly exceptional.
Again: I thought Americans were all about grit and determination and making hard decisions. Sure doesn't seem that way today.
Rant off.
Have you checked on how the Australian and New Zealand gun bans are going? It turns out they have collected almost nothing: https://reason.com/2019/07/08/noncompliance-kneecaps-new-zealands-gun-control-scheme/
People who have guns generally have them for a reason and are very unlikely to turn them over just because the government asks. I live in the Western US where the authorities who would be tasked with knocking on doors to ensure compliance (e.g., the police, members of the National Guard) have a nearly identical overlap with the people who own the guns that the government would want to collect. Bring in outsiders to do the collection and you're looking at starting another civil war because we remember what happens in places when only the police and military have guns and laws are passed to criminalize law-abiding citizens.
The rural/urban split is pretty significant on gun ownership and concerns related to guns. The rural folks tend to have high suicide rates with guns, not high homicide rates. That's why Texas is so interesting to watch at the moment.
The UK is quite concerned about knife violence (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089) and acid attacks (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-is-acid-attack-hotspot-of-western-world-with-victims-as-young-as-10-a4222921.html). Limiting legal gun ownership does little to reduce violence and I'm happy to put up as big a wall of text as it takes for examples from around the world to make that point.
Again, I'd rather have localized one-off gun violence than widespread bombings, gas attacks, or biologicals introduced into the metro systems. The body count is lower while we work on changing other factors. Diverting resources to a futile attempt to make people feel good is a bad idea.
Quote from: polly_mer on September 13, 2019, 06:11:10 AM
Quote from: fast_and_bulbous on August 07, 2019, 06:32:43 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on August 07, 2019, 06:04:07 AM
Imagine the resources required to get enough guns out of circulation in the US to make true progress on limiting supply.
Translation: Don't bother trying, it's too hard! <shrug shoulders>
There's no quick fix but doing nothing and expecting a different result is not a bad definition for insanity.
Australia managed to ban assault rifles (https://globalnews.ca/news/3784603/australia-gun-control-ban/) against a strong resistance following a rise of mass shootings.
(Cue a wall o' text about how "that is different.")
American exceptionalism my ass. The only thing I see us exceptional at these days is deluding ourselves that we are truly exceptional.
Again: I thought Americans were all about grit and determination and making hard decisions. Sure doesn't seem that way today.
Rant off.
Have you checked on how the Australian and New Zealand gun bans are going? It turns out they have collected almost nothing: https://reason.com/2019/07/08/noncompliance-kneecaps-new-zealands-gun-control-scheme/
People who have guns generally have them for a reason and are very unlikely to turn them over just because the government asks. I live in the Western US where the authorities who would be tasked with knocking on doors to ensure compliance (e.g., the police, members of the National Guard) have a nearly identical overlap with the people who own the guns that the government would want to collect. Bring in outsiders to do the collection and you're looking at starting another civil war because we remember what happens in places when only the police and military have guns and laws are passed to criminalize law-abiding citizens.
The rural/urban split is pretty significant on gun ownership and concerns related to guns. The rural folks tend to have high suicide rates with guns, not high homicide rates. That's why Texas is so interesting to watch at the moment.
The UK is quite concerned about knife violence (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089) and acid attacks (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-is-acid-attack-hotspot-of-western-world-with-victims-as-young-as-10-a4222921.html). Limiting legal gun ownership does little to reduce violence and I'm happy to put up as big a wall of text as it takes for examples from around the world to make that point.
Again, I'd rather have localized one-off gun violence than widespread bombings, gas attacks, or biologicals introduced into the metro systems. The body count is lower while we work on changing other factors. Diverting resources to a futile attempt to make people feel good is a bad idea.
No one has claimed that enacting gun control will have an immediate impact and stop gun deaths, but stopping the continued flow of military grade weapons into the hands of anyone who wants them will have a long term effect. Coupling this with background checks, licensing, buy back programs, seazures of illegal guns, etc, will also help to slowly shift the pendulum.
The UK is worried about stabbings, but their stabbing rates are lower than the USA. They are worrying about stabbing deaths not because stabbing rates are so high, it's just that they are high compared to their relatively low rate of gun deaths, they basically have the luxury of worrying about this while Americans have much bigger concerns even though they have a bigger stabbing problem. While acid attacks and bombings generate a lot of attention, the overall homicide rate in the UK is far lower than the US, so it is pretty clear that the UK is a safer country than the US despite these concerns.