Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
There's a reason this group of medications is only used to treat acute symptoms and are never advised to be taken long-term, even in full-grown adults - they are addictive. And they can be highly addictive, too, I'm speaking from close experience. Getting people off a benzodiazepine addiction is a long process. While I'm trying to start with the premise that the doctors in those cases still have their patient's best interest at heart, it kind of boggles my mind what kind of situations these are when a toddler gets god damn benzodiazepines for a longer period of time; and it makes me questions whether or not there might have been far better treatment plans for those kids.
daedalus wrote: Oh sure. I'm not blaming the meds. But last I knew, there's more mental health issues estimated in the US than elsewhere. It's not unreasonable to assume the possibility that we might have different ones here than elsewhere, or at least, a higher prevalence of certain specific ones than elsewhere. Not to say that the medicine isn't effective in some or even most cases, but it seems like it's often a factor in these kinds of situations, and that's when it goes wrong the hardest.
Or it’s simply over diagnosed, not because the American people are especially predisposed towards such conditions, but a consequence of a healthcare system in which more money is made the more drugs are issued. In the UK doctors have no personal interest in giving out prescriptions for particular drugs, in fact the NHS has interest in not giving out drugs because it costs the state. Prescription drugs are advertised on tv in the US - ‘ask you doctor for Xanthafil today’. That doesn’t happen in the UK because your doctor decides what you’re getting or not and they’re no reason to favour one brand over another. Doctors in the US can shovel out pills because insurers pick up the tab.
Children in the US are some of the most doped up in the world. Parent can’t handle a noisy kid? Take them to the doctor and he’ll prescribe expensive sedatives. It’s much more difficult in the UK. I don’t believe that mental health is an especially special problem in the US, but the frequency of prescribing sedatives is.
Crazyterran wrote: The news coverage should be 'some donkey-cave shot up a school today, heres the stories from the families' and carefully not talk about the shooter at all.
Sympathy for the families, being forgotten and sent to rot for the perp.
I'll agree to this only to a point. Not outing the shooter lets conspiracy theorists run rampant and could be used by some to push agendas concerning the 'criminal' nature of certain ethnic groups.
Kilkrazy wrote: Is there good evidence to suppose that mass killers are triggered by media reports of other mass killers?
I mean, I'm sure someone somewhere has done research on the subject--but whether it's good evidence or not will be up for debate. There's always some attempt to argue things away from "access to guns is a major factor".
Larkin examined twelve major school shootings in the United States in the eight years after Columbine and found that in eight of those, "the shooters made explicit reference to Harris and Klebold."
Kilkrazy wrote: Is there good evidence to suppose that mass killers are triggered by media reports of other mass killers?
It's widely accepted that suicide contagion effect is real and that's why it's reportedly differently now so why shouldn't we treat mass shootings in a similar manner? Media reporting on successful suicides increases the rate of suicides so it’s reasonable to believe massive media attention on spree killers can contribute to creating more spree killers.
ASPECTS OF NEWS COVERAGE THAT CAN PROMOTE SUICIDE CONTAGION
Clinicians, researchers, and other health professionals at the workshop agreed that to minimize the likelihood of suicide contagion, reporting should be concise and factual. Although scientific research in this area is not complete, workshop participants believed that the likelihood of suicide contagion may be increased by the following actions:
Presenting simplistic explanations for suicide.
Suicide is never the result of a single factor or event, but rather results from a complex interaction of many factors and usually involves a history of psychosocial problems (12). Public officials and the media should carefully explain that the final precipitating event was not the only cause of a given suicide. Most persons who have committed suicide have had a history of problems that may not have been acknowledged during the acute aftermath of the suicide. Cataloguing the problems that could have played a causative role in a suicide is not necessary, but acknowledgment of these problems is recommended.
Engaging in repetitive, ongoing, or excessive reporting of suicide in the news.
Repetitive and ongoing coverage, or prominent coverage, of a suicide tends to promote and maintain a preoccupation with suicide among at-risk persons, especially among persons 15-24 years of age. This preoccupation appears to be associated with suicide contagion. Information presented to the media should include the association between such coverage and the potential for suicide contagion. Public officials and media representatives should discuss alternative approaches for coverage of newsworthy suicide stories.
Providing sensational coverage of suicide.
By its nature, news coverage of a suicidal event tends to heighten the general public's preoccupation with suicide. This reaction is also believed to be associated with contagion and the development of suicide clusters. Public officials can help minimize sensationalism by limiting, as much as possible, morbid details in their public discussions of suicide. News media professionals should attempt to decrease the prominence of the news report and avoid the use of dramatic photographs related to the suicide (e.g., photographs of the funeral, the deceased person's bedroom, and the site of the suicide).
Reporting "how-to" descriptions of suicide.
Describing technical details about the method of suicide is undesirable. For example, reporting that a person died from carbon monoxide poisoning may not be harmful; however, providing details of the mechanism and procedures used to complete the suicide may facilitate imitation of the suicidal behavior by other at-risk persons.
Presenting suicide as a tool for accomplishing certain ends.
Suicide is usually a rare act of a troubled or depressed person. Presen- tation of suicide as a means of coping with personal problems (e.g., the break-up of a relationship or retaliation against parental discipline) may suggest suicide as a potential coping mechanism to at-risk persons. Although such factors often seem to trigger a suicidal act, other psychopathological problems are almost always involved. If suicide is presented as an effective means for accomplishing specific ends, it may be perceived by a potentially suicidal person as an attractive solution.
Glorifying suicide or persons who commit suicide.
News coverage is less likely to contribute to suicide contagion when reports of community expressions of grief (e.g., public eulogies, flying flags at half-mast, and erecting permanent public memorials) are minimized. Such actions may contribute to suicide contagion by suggesting to susceptible persons that society is honoring the suicidal behavior of the deceased person, rather than mourning the person's death.
Focusing on the suicide completer's positive characteristics.
Empathy for family and friends often leads to a focus on reporting the positive aspects of a suicide completer's life. For example, friends or teachers may be quoted as saying the deceased person "was a great kid" or "had a bright future," and they avoid mentioning the troubles and problems that the deceased person experienced. As a result, statements venerating the deceased person are often reported in the news. However, if the suicide completer's problems are not acknowledged in the presence of these laudatory statements, suicidal behavior may appear attractive to other at-risk persons -- especially those who rarely receive positive reinforcement for desirable behaviors.
CONCLUSION
In addition to recognizing the types of news coverage that can promote suicide contagion, the workshop participants strongly agreed that reporting of suicide can have several direct benefits. Specifically, community efforts to address this problem can be strengthened by news coverage that describes the help and support available in a community, explains how to identify persons at high risk for suicide, or presents information about risk factors for suicide. An ongoing dialogue between news media professionals and health and other public officials is the key to facilitating the reporting of this information.
Mental illness is not a communicable disease, but there’s a strong body of evidence that suicide is still contagious. Publicity surrounding a suicide has been repeatedly and definitively linked to a subsequent increase in suicide, especially among young people. Analysis suggests that at least 5 percent of youth suicides are influenced by contagion.
People who kill themselves are already vulnerable, but publicity around another suicide appears to make a difference as they are considering their options. The evidence suggests that suicide “outbreaks” and “clusters” are real phenomena; one death can set off others. There’s a particularly strong effect from celebrity suicides.
“Suicide contagion is real, which is why I’m concerned about it,” said Madelyn Gould, a professor of Epidemiology in Psychiatry at Columbia University, who has studied suicide contagion extensively.
Suicide is a substantial public health issue. Instances have risen over the past decade, according to a 2013 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study, particularly among the middle-aged. More people die in the U.S. by suicide than in car accidents. But focusing media attention on suicide — while well-intentioned — can lead to the tragic outcome of fueling more if such a national conversation is not handled in the right way.
A coalition of journalists, along with a group of suicide prevention groups, including the American Association of Suicidology and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, have issued a set of recommendations on how to talk about suicide in the media. "Recommendations for Reporting on Suicide," which cites more than 50 research studies, notes that the amount, duration and prominence of suicide news coverage “can increase the likelihood of suicide in vulnerable individuals.” It can be especially harmful when the media goes into detail about how a person died, uses dramatic images or glamorizes the person’s death, according to the report.
Ok now that we've determined that I'm no crazier than normal, and might be on to something here, thoughts on a solution that pisses off no one but the press?
Also, Prestor John, why Scævola for a sig? I'd have gone for Marx, myself, if I wanted a sig quote to slam religion. Most people at least know who he is.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
You will never find a solution that pleases everyone. That is impossible when the two extremes of the argument are diametrically opposite on what they want.
However there could be a compromise which satisfies the middle ground, the 75% of Americans who broadly support gun ownership but are getting increasingly dismayed by the increasing number of massacres.
I propose the following:
1. Mandatory licence test for safety training. This would be conducted by local gun clubs affiliated with the NRA, based on a national standard developed by the NRA..
2. No-one to be allowed to buy a gun without holding a valid safety certificate.
3. Background check for criminal record and mental health before purchase.
4. All guns owned to be registered with local gun club affiliated with the NRA. The NRA to maintain a national database of registered weapons.
5. If a gun is stolen or lost it must be reported..
Have you even banned bump stocks yet? A device seemingly only suited for mass shooters and people who just want to spray targets with bullets in a manner not consistent with any of the argued justifications for rifle ownership. You wouldn’t use one for sport or home defence or reasonably for hunting, it doesn’t strike me as particularly appropriate for a range.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/27 10:13:42
Howard A Treesong wrote: Have you even banned bump stocks yet? A device seemingly only suited for mass shooters and people who just want to spray targets with bullets in a manner not consistent with any of the argued justifications for rifle ownership. You wouldn’t use one for sport or home defence or reasonably for hunting, it doesn’t strike me as particularly appropriate for a range.
Yes well, it doesn't require a bump stock to bump fire so banning them in a way that makes sense with out banning basic trigger modifications is probably outside the scope of law makers ability to fathom let alone accomplish.
The problem with the proposed bump stock bans is the wording. The proposed laws I've seen are all similar to
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the manu- facture, possession, or transfer of any part or combina- tion of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun, and for other purposes.
790.222 Bump-fire stocks prohibited.—A person may not 737 import into this state or transfer, distribute, sell, keep for 738 sale, offer for sale, possess, or give to another person a bump 739 fire stock. A person who violates this section commits a felony 740 of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 741 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, the term “bump 742 fire stock” means a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a 743 device used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm to mimic 744 automatic weapon fire or which is used to increase the rate of 745 fire to a faster rate than is possible for a person to fire such 746 semiautomatic firearm unassisted by a kit, a tool, an accessory, 747 or a device. 748 Section 14.
http://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2018/7026/BillText/er/HTML So the aftermarket trigger I installed would be illegal, as would the Eotech sight, or the vertical fore grip, or even a good sling. All allow me to fire more rapidly than I can without them.
You then can look at enforcement issues. How do cops enforce a law with this wording consistently and fairly? One cop may ONLY enforce it against actual bump stocks. One may say "Hey, that aftermarket trigger means you go to jail".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/27 11:59:32
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Insurgency Walker wrote: Showing once again that there is no common sense in common sense gun control laws.
“Common sense” and “reasonable” are only used by anti-gun proponents to make it seem like pro-gun advocates are neither of those things. Legislation such as bump stock bans or magazine limits are neither common sense nor reasonable in my opinion, but then that makes me some sort of demon in their eyes. All this talk of “compromise” is absolute bunk, because the pro-gun side never gets anything out of the deal, it’s always just a list of restrictions demanded by anti-gun folks.
Nostromodamus wrote: All this talk of “compromise” is absolute bunk, because the pro-gun side never gets anything out of the deal, it’s always just a list of restrictions demanded by anti-gun folks.
How do you expect to "get anything" when the US has the closest to no regulation at all.
Compromise is shorthand for what parts you want to keep the most.
How do you expect to "get anything" when the US has the closest to no regulation at all.
Not really an accurate statement at all. There are many many gun laws and regulations at the federal, state and municipality level. Probably more than most countries. They are just different than other countries' laws and regulations and many folks on Dakka don't like them. Some think the existing laws are too permissive, some think not permissive enough.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Nostromodamus wrote: All this talk of “compromise” is absolute bunk, because the pro-gun side never gets anything out of the deal, it’s always just a list of restrictions demanded by anti-gun folks.
How do you expect to "get anything" when the US has the closest to no regulation at all.
Compromise is shorthand for what parts you want to keep the most.
Except we've "compromised" repeatedly, when we've just ignored the "shall not be infringed" part, and allowed them to be infringed, again, and again, and again.
Nostromodamus wrote: All this talk of “compromise” is absolute bunk, because the pro-gun side never gets anything out of the deal, it’s always just a list of restrictions demanded by anti-gun folks.
How do you expect to "get anything" when the US has the closest to no regulation at all.
Compromise is shorthand for what parts you want to keep the most.
I think the compromise should be taking a serious look at why our educational system has devolved into some sort of psychopath generating machine.
And we've already violated the Constitution as it's the Federal Government that controls interstate commerce, not the states.
"[Congress shall have the power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3)
How do you expect to "get anything" when the US has the closest to no regulation at all.
Compromise is shorthand for what parts you want to keep the most.
The issue is though that restricting guns won't actually solve the problem, and may in fact, make it worse. Actual solutions have been outlined above, but everyone falls back to guns, because taking 'responsibility' is beyond the average American at this point.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/27 13:07:08
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Insurgency Walker wrote: Showing once again that there is no common sense in common sense gun control laws.
“Common sense” and “reasonable” are only used by anti-gun proponents to make it seem like pro-gun advocates are neither of those things. Legislation such as bump stock bans or magazine limits are neither common sense nor reasonable in my opinion, but then that makes me some sort of demon in their eyes. All this talk of “compromise” is absolute bunk, because the pro-gun side never gets anything out of the deal, it’s always just a list of restrictions demanded by anti-gun folks.
Indeed. Where are the compromises that are beneficial to gun owners? The Hearing Act? CHL reciprocity?
Nostromodamus wrote: All this talk of “compromise” is absolute bunk, because the pro-gun side never gets anything out of the deal, it’s always just a list of restrictions demanded by anti-gun folks.
How do you expect to "get anything" when the US has the closest to no regulation at all.
Compromise is shorthand for what parts you want to keep the most.
You literally have no clue about the current legislation in place on a state by state basis, but opine like you do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/27 13:09:42
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
How do you expect to "get anything" when the US has the closest to no regulation at all.
Not really an accurate statement at all. There are many many gun laws and regulations at the federal, state and municipality level. Probably more than most countries. They are just different than other countries' laws and regulations and many folks on Dakka don't like them. Some think the existing laws are too permissive, some think not permissive enough.
And that's part of the problem. Too many laws, too small jurisdiction and in many cases no teeth.
How do you expect to "get anything" when the US has the closest to no regulation at all.
Not really an accurate statement at all. There are many many gun laws and regulations at the federal, state and municipality level. Probably more than most countries. They are just different than other countries' laws and regulations and many folks on Dakka don't like them. Some think the existing laws are too permissive, some think not permissive enough.
And that's part of the problem. Too many laws, too small jurisdiction and in many cases no teeth.
Since the school shootings have all involved teenage or young adults why not just get rid of them? One of the things we legally recognize is that children and teenagers only have partially formed mental facilities so they are far more prone to react in an unstable manner that's influenced by emotion and hormones so why not just completely remove them from society until they are proper adults? All kids ages 10 and up go stay locked up safely with the state until early to mid-20s adulthood when they can pass a series of test showing that they are mentally stable and mature enough to participate in the adult world, the young adults that wash out get transferred to adult facilities and stay locked up so they aren't a danger to other people. Weed out the bad ones early and keep them safely away from everyone else.
Or we can recognize that these events are a 1 in a million type of occurrences, and stick away from the hyperbole.
Kids are more likely to die from a disease they've caught in school. More likely to die travelling to school. More likely to suffer a life limiting injury in a school sport.
A great read on this phenomena of school shootings, and why it's getting so much attention, for such a extremely low risk issue.
Kilkrazy wrote: You will never find a solution that pleases everyone. That is impossible when the two extremes of the argument are diametrically opposite on what they want.
However there could be a compromise which satisfies the middle ground, the 75% of Americans who broadly support gun ownership but are getting increasingly dismayed by the increasing number of massacres.
I propose the following:
1. Mandatory licence test for safety training. This would be conducted by local gun clubs affiliated with the NRA, based on a national standard developed by the NRA..
2. No-one to be allowed to buy a gun without holding a valid safety certificate.
3. Background check for criminal record and mental health before purchase.
4. All guns owned to be registered with local gun club affiliated with the NRA. The NRA to maintain a national database of registered weapons.
5. If a gun is stolen or lost it must be reported..
1) Possibly, but there would need to be a great PR campaign for this so it doesn't show as Big Brother keeping a list of gun owners
2) Goes with 1
3) We would have to reform our healthcare system, which most of us have been advocating for.
4) Nope. Nope nope nope. The NRA would outright refuseto do such a thing, and even us moderate pro-gun people are against it. As a counter-point, how about we ban non-background check private sales, and any sales must be completed at an FFL, and the feds pick up the tab. That way the ATF gets the paper trail it needs, sellers (and buyers) are safe, and no real registry exists?
5) I absolutely agree.
feeder wrote: Frazz's mind is like a wiener dog in a rabbit warren. Dark, twisting tunnels, and full of the certainty that just around the next bend will be the quarry he seeks.
Kilkrazy wrote: You will never find a solution that pleases everyone. That is impossible when the two extremes of the argument are diametrically opposite on what they want.
However there could be a compromise which satisfies the middle ground, the 75% of Americans who broadly support gun ownership but are getting increasingly dismayed by the increasing number of massacres.
I propose the following:
1. Mandatory licence test for safety training. This would be conducted by local gun clubs affiliated with the NRA, based on a national standard developed by the NRA..
2. No-one to be allowed to buy a gun without holding a valid safety certificate.
3. Background check for criminal record and mental health before purchase.
4. All guns owned to be registered with local gun club affiliated with the NRA. The NRA to maintain a national database of registered weapons.
5. If a gun is stolen or lost it must be reported..
1) Possibly, but there would need to be a great PR campaign for this so it doesn't show as Big Brother keeping a list of gun owners
2) Goes with 1
Oh please. This is nonsense.
Also, you don't want the NRA involved period. They're garbage and should be treated as such. They're nothing but a lobbyist for conservative "Christian" values and gun manufacturers at this point.
3) We would have to reform our healthcare system, which most of us have been advocating for.
It would require more on the side of criminal reform to ensure that domestic abuse disqualifies you from owning firearms. People advocating for healthcare reform aren't advocating for it strictly on the side of firearms.
4) Nope. Nope nope nope. The NRA would outright refuseto do such a thing, and even us moderate pro-gun people are against it. As a counter-point, how about we ban non-background check private sales, and any sales must be completed at an FFL, and the feds pick up the tab. That way the ATF gets the paper trail it needs, sellers (and buyers) are safe, and no real registry exists?
Again, cut the NRA out of anything and everything until they remove Oliver North from their payroll. Same goes for the weird nonsense coming out of NRATV.
Additionally, the ATF gets to have digital, searchable records. Look into what they're having to cope with and tell me that is acceptable in this day and age.
5) I absolutely agree.
At least that's done then.
So what penalties should exist for those who don't report a firearm lost or stolen? I'm of the opinion that it should be barring them from owning a firearm until getting recertified via a local gun club and after that to have 'home checks' to make sure the firearm is properly secured. If they lose too many or too many 'get stolen', they're barred from owning them period.
Kan, you go on to propose punishing the victims of crimes, and have the gall to call pointing out a valid response 'nonsense'.
Now to take whole thread to task:
Rather than look at valid, and legal responses to this issue, all of you run back to guns, and try to exploit whatever tragedy has happened to push hard to treat a symptom rather than the cause, as though this will solve anything
Liberals: Shut the feth up about guns and, for once, try something constructive rather than whine about conservatives and their guns.
Conservatives: Shut the feth up about guns and offer solutions rather than bitch about liberals and their assumption that police will save them.
Because once you do remove guns from the equation, next you'll whine about how easy it is to get bombs, and then knives, and then demand people cut off their hands lest they beat someone to death. Without dealing with the root problem, you can take all the steps you like to reduce the issue, but will never actually stop the violence. Why? American Ingenuity. If you don't believe me, remember that people are still shot and stabbed in prisons, where all sorts of weapons are banned.
So, first step: ban certain types of coverage of events. Bring the media that glorifies them to heel. Remember, ISIS TV covered suicide bombers in the same way that CNN and Fox and so on cover school shooters; IE in a manner that convinces a certain type of kid to go out and kill as many people as they can. There's your issue, and there's the difference between other countries with the same gun laws, and the US.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Kan, you go on to propose punishing the victims of crimes, and have the gall to call pointing out a valid response 'nonsense'.
I proposed punishing the victim of a crime(read: someone who had a gun stolen) involving a weapon being lost or stolen. I also proposed punishing someone who is the victim of nothing but their own failings. In both instances however, I thought it would be abundantly clear that it all had to do with a "strikes" system. Someone who loses their gun, even one time absolutely should be punished for it. It's a frigging gun not your car keys or a cell phone.
If people want to treat guns as though they're somehow more valuable than children's lives(which is what the argument from the NRA keeps amounting to), make it so that the firearms get treated as such for failing to ensure proper care. Someone who fosters children can be severely punished for failing to report one of their charges missing. Parents can be held legally responsible for the death of their children from failing to provide a standard of care.
So try again.
Also, with regards to this:
So, first step: ban certain types of coverage of events. Bring the media that glorifies them to heel. Remember, ISIS TV covered suicide bombers in the same way that CNN and Fox and so on cover school shooters; IE in a manner that convinces a certain type of kid to go out and kill as many people as they can. There's your issue, and there's the difference between other countries with the same gun laws, and the US.
Try actually watching some frigging news. CNN and Fox have in no real way, shape, or form 'glorified' these kinds of shootings. They get coverage but why the hell shouldn't they? It's news. What do you want them to do, cut to commercials for the duration of the event? Pretend it didn't happen?
There's also not any real "other countries with the same gun laws" as the US. That's part of the problem.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/27 19:24:34
Kilkrazy wrote: You will never find a solution that pleases everyone. That is impossible when the two extremes of the argument are diametrically opposite on what they want.
However there could be a compromise which satisfies the middle ground, the 75% of Americans who broadly support gun ownership but are getting increasingly dismayed by the increasing number of massacres.
I propose the following:
1. Mandatory licence test for safety training. This would be conducted by local gun clubs affiliated with the NRA, based on a national standard developed by the NRA..
2. No-one to be allowed to buy a gun without holding a valid safety certificate.
3. Background check for criminal record and mental health before purchase.
4. All guns owned to be registered with local gun club affiliated with the NRA. The NRA to maintain a national database of registered weapons.
5. If a gun is stolen or lost it must be reported..
What you propose is useless wish listing. Items #1, 2, and 4 are literally impossible to legislate on the Federal level. Congress cannot legally pass such laws because the Federal government does not possess the jurisdiction to do so. We can’t have a Federal fires purchasing license for the same reasons why we can’t have Federal drivers licenses or Federal fishing licenses or Federal home buying licenses or Federal adoption licenses etc. Federal gun laws are restrictions placed on the seller not the buyer. Federal Firearms License holders, gun store owners, who engage in interstate commerce are required to follow Federal laws regarding to whom they can lawfully sell a gun. If I sell a gun I own via a private sale that is intrastate commerce governed by state law not Federal. Likewise the requirements I have to meet to obtain a concealed carry license are a matter of state law not Federal. The safe storage laws I have to abide by are state laws not Federal laws. Item #3 already exists on the Federal level and is applicable to all Federally licenses dealers all the time for every purchase. Item #5 already exists on the state level for most states and can’t be implemented on the Federal level.
Larkin examined twelve major school shootings in the United States in the eight years after Columbine and found that in eight of those, "the shooters made explicit reference to Harris and Klebold."
Because spreading their name and face and kill count gives the little gaks exactly what they wanted.
Kanluwen wrote: [
If people want to treat guns as though they're somehow more valuable than children's lives(which is what the argument from the NRA keeps amounting to), make it so that the firearms get treated as such for failing to ensure proper care. Someone who fosters children can be severely punished for failing to report one of their charges missing. Parents can be held legally responsible for the death of their children from failing to provide a standard of care.
Yes, but if someone breaks into your house and steals your kids, the parents are not the one's charged, usually. So, your analogy really doesn't work there.
Kanluwen wrote: [
Try actually watching some frigging news. CNN and Fox have in no real way, shape, or form 'glorified' these kinds of shootings. They get coverage but why the hell shouldn't they? It's news. What do you want them to do, cut to commercials for the duration of the event? Pretend it didn't happen?
I have to watch entirely too much frigging news because Trump says we can't turn it off. It's either Fox or The Price is Right every lunch break. I wish to God we could see something else.
How about:
Not show the killers name or face, not act like it's the most important thing going on in the world, not run it 24/7 for weeks following the event to milk as much advertising money from it as possible? Not do running tallies like it's a gaming killboard about how this compares to other school killings? There are more ways to glorify something than just show images of the killer and some religious themed music playing in the background. Stretching out coverage as much as possible and milking it as long as you can does the job just as well.
Kanluwen wrote: [
There's also not any real "other countries with the same gun laws" as the US. That's part of the problem.
I notice that disparaging 'real' again. Sorry, Kan, that trap is so obvious it's unworthy of even you. So, let's go with a country that follows a hot second after the US for gun ownership per capita, Norway. They have the second highest guns per capita following the US, but are third from the bottom for per capita gun deaths.
Guns are not the issue. It's how the media and the politicians milk it for all it's worth that guarantees another one. And it's people like you who's obsession with the idea that guns are the issue that means that no one will ever stop it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/27 21:28:21
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
3100+
