The Perpetual Gun Control Thread
- Thread starter CharminTide
- Start date
- Status
You got me, Matt.....but in looking at the few mass shootings back then, and I did look, none were caused by what I had in mind.
And while I didn't do the exact math - percentage wise - we're WAY higher in the last decade than ever before.
And yes - a ton of things different but I was trying to narrow it down to one factor that I feel was overlooked and one that (IMHO) is very significant.
Good answer and along the lines of what I had in mind.
====
If you look at many of the mass shootings, there is one common denominator that wasn't in place back in the day.
Social media.
To expound further.....and this is just a theory of mine....many of these shooters feed off of attention - and a LOT of that attention comes from Social Media.
In fact.....how many people in our country love Social Media because of the "likes" they receive? Plus other forms of adulation and/or attention.
Who knows what goes on in these heads of these people....but when you see pictures and posts by them with references to violence.....to me it means they are LOOKING for attention.
Without Social Media......would these shootings still take place?
I don't know.
But I don't see a whole lot of discussion about this vs. all the talk about 'assault weapons' and magazine size, etc.
Think about yourself....and how much you feed off of Social Media. Then imagine if you had a chip on your shoulder and/or were a little off balanced mentally.
Not a good situation......
This general idea seemed to pick up steam after Virginia Tech. The shooter got so much air time on tv, discussions about his beliefs, etc that he was essentially made famous/infamous. People would remember his name whereas he otherwise would have disappeared into obscurity.
I do believe discussing these types of events without even mentioning who the shooter was would be better than trying to dig up every detail about them we can. But that's a problem with news becoming more and more entertainment and something even more geared towards selling ads than they used to be. Everyone wants a scoop for the clicks/views/ratings/etc. without regard for any impact it could have. Same goes for a lot beyond just shootings.
Agree.
And just to be clear - my thoughts were more about all the "attention" the shooter receives BEFORE the incident - not so much afterwards...because many times they are dead by then, but also you will never control the media - they are in it for the ratings, as you said.
In fact - I'm not sure how one could manage Social Media either. But as I mentioned in a post a few days ago - shouldn't they be in the discussion?
- You Tube
- Snapchat
- Etc.
It's not more political.
It's more vapid, shrill, and unabashedly partisan. Just like viewers.
Well, I wasn't - on purpose. I was attempting to make people look at the two facets of the problem - the publicized but minuscule, in total deaths, mass shootings and the 9/10ths of the iceberg below the surface of the total gun deaths. Also overlooked in the PR of mass shootings - WaPo
Was just watching CNN and in the crawler I saw where Cruz was a member of an online chat group where he discussed killing small animals.
Another example of social media perhaps fueling someone's mental instability?
I don't know...just asking the question....
Another example of social media perhaps fueling someone's mental instability?
I don't know...just asking the question....
The "Was Tua's Sack Planned" of Non-Sports 
Videogames, Social Media, the break up of the traditional family, the absence of religion - If the Horse has already bolted the stable in gun control terms, how can getting any of those Genies back in their bottle's possibly be seen as a more realistic fix?
Videogames, Social Media, the break up of the traditional family, the absence of religion - If the Horse has already bolted the stable in gun control terms, how can getting any of those Genies back in their bottle's possibly be seen as a more realistic fix?
I am in support of increased regulations, but you can’t deny that outside factors like these have increased exponentially during the same period that shootings have increased (specifically the interconnectivity of social media and violent first person shooters). I think overlooking how these things could motivate or desensitize a mentally ill person is foolish. Several of the recent mass shooters were obsessed with the Columbine killers and the coverage they received both during and after the fact. That doesn’t mean we should ignore changes on gun laws, but it’s fair to say these play a part as well.The "Was Tua's Sack Planned" of Non-Sports
Videogames, Social Media, the break up of the traditional family, the absence of religion - If the Horse has already bolted the stable in gun control terms, how can getting any of those Genies back in their bottle's possibly be seen as a more realistic fix?
I will also say that gun regulations are much more easily implementable than fixing deeply rooted societal issues.
Perhaps....but as I posted above......if the Social Media CEO's would get involved - they could work wonders.
Completely agree. And there’s a wide net of issues they need to start taking more ownership over. I think/hope this will improve over the next few years now that pressure is starting to mount on them to take responsibility for the content spread on their platforms.
While it should be the first thing we address (root causes), the reality is that we will not, simply because it's difficult. We'll (try to) do what's easy - gun laws - but most likely nothing will change, even if more laws are added yet again.
I think lack of proper treatment / diagnosis / monitoring of mental illness is probably the root issue, and that social media and exposure to violence may escalate violent tendencies. However, IMO limiting the ability for these individuals to access deadly weapons is all part of the same argument/ solution.
And I think everyone you talk to is fine with that solution - as long as it doesn't impinge on the incredibly huge numbers of legal firearm owners.
"Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it's evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.* Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." - Jefferson to James Madison, January 30, 1787
* 'I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery.'
Banning Hi-Capacity magazines seems logical to some until you realize just having four 7 round magazines would still allow you to kill at a maximum 28 people, 29 with a chambered round.
Another thing I’ve seen is the Australian gun buy back. They bought back some 660k firearms (give or take) at the cost of an estimated of 500 million. The USA has well over 300 million privately owned firearms and using that same math would cost at a minimum 228 billion and that’s assuming every single gun owner complied (which we all know they won’t). The same idiot liberals who think deporting 11 million illegal aliens is impossible somehow think seizing/buying back hundreds of millions of firearms would somehow work. Unbelievable.
Another thing I’ve seen is the Australian gun buy back. They bought back some 660k firearms (give or take) at the cost of an estimated of 500 million. The USA has well over 300 million privately owned firearms and using that same math would cost at a minimum 228 billion and that’s assuming every single gun owner complied (which we all know they won’t). The same idiot liberals who think deporting 11 million illegal aliens is impossible somehow think seizing/buying back hundreds of millions of firearms would somehow work. Unbelievable.
Magazine capacity has little (if any) affect on a person's ability to shoot a large number of rounds quickly.
- Status
Latest threads
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 1
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
