So listening to the radio on my work and they said this guy actually recently sought treatment but was turned away because there was no room for him. Apparently this happened as well with that senators kid who ended up murdering his dad. I think my points in this thread have some serious merit...
Simply, that you have a huge problem with gun violence in the States. Pretty simple.
We have larger problem with heart disease, cancer, alzheimer, diabetes and even car accidents all of which have killed significantly more Americans than gun violence so far. What's your point? Yes, there's a crime and drug (looking through the cited source for the chart, majority of the gun deaths are drug related) problem in America, we need to address it. Violence (gun or otherwise) is merely one of many symptoms of that problem.
It's all about the money. The NRA will lobby and fight against any regulation no matter how reasonable just to protect their income. They don't care about rights and freedoms except theirs to make as much money as possible. They fearmonger people into believing that they'll lose everything and that the government will come and take all their guns away.
Irrational fear isn't an unique feature to just NRA.
You hear about this kind of stuff every couple of months, it seems.
I'm fortunate that so far in my life I've never been in a situation like that. I wonder if people would be safer if they could all carry a weapon, or if that would just make matters worse. I guess I'd like to hope people would watch out for each other, as much as themselves - but that is a difficult burden to constantly carry.
You hear about this kind of stuff every couple of months, it seems.
I'm fortunate that so far in my life I've never been in a situation like that. I wonder if people would be safer if they could all carry a weapon, or if that would just make matters worse. I guess I'd like to hope people would watch out for each other, as much as themselves - but that is a difficult burden to constantly carry.
I don't necessary agree that people will be safer in general if EVERYONE carried a weapon. I think it would definitely reduce incidents of mass shootings; vast majority of those shooters specifically picked locations where they are not likely to encounter armed resistance. But that would be offset significantly by increase number of negligent discharges and rage killing instances.
Now if teachers or professors can be given the choice to armed themselves and be trained periodically to effectively defend themselves and students, I think that would be an effective deterrence for at least these school shootings.
You hear about this kind of stuff every couple of months, it seems.
I'm fortunate that so far in my life I've never been in a situation like that. I wonder if people would be safer if they could all carry a weapon, or if that would just make matters worse. I guess I'd like to hope people would watch out for each other, as much as themselves - but that is a difficult burden to constantly carry.
Now if teachers or professors can be given the choice to armed themselves and be trained periodically to effectively defend themselves and students, I think that would be an effective deterrence for at least these school shootings.
Obama has to do something this is too much too often. The NRA lobbyists don't care about Americans they just want money, and they've tricked the republican idiots easily.
You hear about this kind of stuff every couple of months, it seems.
I'm fortunate that so far in my life I've never been in a situation like that. I wonder if people would be safer if they could all carry a weapon, or if that would just make matters worse. I guess I'd like to hope people would watch out for each other, as much as themselves - but that is a difficult burden to constantly carry.
I don't necessary agree that people will be safer in general if EVERYONE carried a weapon. I think it would definitely reduce incidents of mass shootings; vast majority of those shooters specifically picked locations where they are not likely to encounter armed resistance. But that would be offset significantly by increase number of negligent discharges and rage killing instances.
Now if teachers or professors can be given the choice to armed themselves and be trained periodically to effectively defend themselves and students, I think that would be an effective deterrence for at least these school shootings.
I don't think that quite works out. Think about it, somebody starts shooting in a dark movie theater, then somebody else shoots at him, then in the confusion, a third guy starts shooting at the second guy. It just wouldn't work out. On top of that real life isn't an action movie, people freeze and make bad decisions under life or death levels of stress unless they've specifically trained to deal with that type of stress like spec ops for instance. The average person though is going to have the accuracy of Michael J. Fox and is very likely to injure somebody innocent in the process.
Obama has to do something this is too much too often.The NRA lobbyists don't care about Americans they just want money, and they've tricked the republican idiots easily.
You hear about this kind of stuff every couple of months, it seems.
I'm fortunate that so far in my life I've never been in a situation like that. I wonder if people would be safer if they could all carry a weapon, or if that would just make matters worse. I guess I'd like to hope people would watch out for each other, as much as themselves - but that is a difficult burden to constantly carry.
I don't necessary agree that people will be safer in general if EVERYONE carried a weapon. I think it would definitely reduce incidents of mass shootings; vast majority of those shooters specifically picked locations where they are not likely to encounter armed resistance. But that would be offset significantly by increase number of negligent discharges and rage killing instances.
Now if teachers or professors can be given the choice to armed themselves and be trained periodically to effectively defend themselves and students, I think that would be an effective deterrence for at least these school shootings.
Or strangers couldn't get into schools. Or on campus. Not a fan of armed teachers.
You hear about this kind of stuff every couple of months, it seems.
I'm fortunate that so far in my life I've never been in a situation like that. I wonder if people would be safer if they could all carry a weapon, or if that would just make matters worse. I guess I'd like to hope people would watch out for each other, as much as themselves - but that is a difficult burden to constantly carry.
I don't necessary agree that people will be safer in general if EVERYONE carried a weapon. I think it would definitely reduce incidents of mass shootings; vast majority of those shooters specifically picked locations where they are not likely to encounter armed resistance. But that would be offset significantly by increase number of negligent discharges and rage killing instances.
Now if teachers or professors can be given the choice to armed themselves and be trained periodically to effectively defend themselves and students, I think that would be an effective deterrence for at least these school shootings.
I don't think that quite works out. Think about it, somebody starts shooting in a dark movie theater, then somebody else shoots at him, then in the confusion, a third guy starts shooting at the second guy. It just wouldn't work out. On top of that real life isn't an action movie, people freeze and make bad decisions under life or death levels of stress unless they've specifically trained to deal with that type of stress like spec ops for instance. The average person though is going to have the accuracy of Michael J. Fox and is very likely to injure somebody innocent in the process.
So you would rather the teachers' and students' lives be at the mercy of a lunatic than to give them a chance fighting back and stopping the manic because innocent bystanders (whom, I remind you, are already at risk of being shot and killed) MIGHT get hit by accident. If I was in the room, I'd take my chances with the person with the gun who ISN'T intended on shooting and killing me.
You hear about this kind of stuff every couple of months, it seems.
I'm fortunate that so far in my life I've never been in a situation like that. I wonder if people would be safer if they could all carry a weapon, or if that would just make matters worse. I guess I'd like to hope people would watch out for each other, as much as themselves - but that is a difficult burden to constantly carry.
I don't necessary agree that people will be safer in general if EVERYONE carried a weapon. I think it would definitely reduce incidents of mass shootings; vast majority of those shooters specifically picked locations where they are not likely to encounter armed resistance. But that would be offset significantly by increase number of negligent discharges and rage killing instances.
Now if teachers or professors can be given the choice to armed themselves and be trained periodically to effectively defend themselves and students, I think that would be an effective deterrence for at least these school shootings.
I don't think that quite works out. Think about it, somebody starts shooting in a dark movie theater, then somebody else shoots at him, then in the confusion, a third guy starts shooting at the second guy. It just wouldn't work out. On top of that real life isn't an action movie, people freeze and make bad decisions under life or death levels of stress unless they've specifically trained to deal with that type of stress like spec ops for instance. The average person though is going to have the accuracy of Michael J. Fox and is very likely to injure somebody innocent in the process.
So you would rather the teachers' and students' lives be at the mercy of a lunatic than to give them a chance fighting back and stopping the manic because innocent bystanders (whom, I remind you, are already at risk of being shot and killed) MIGHT get hit by accident. If I was in the room, I'd take my chances with the person with the gun who ISN'T intended on shooting and killing me.
Yes, like I said, real life is not an action movie. People don't pull a die hard and rise to the occasion. People panic, make bad decisions, who's to say some panicked 60 year old teacher wouldn't reaction shot a kid or another teacher? Unless they've specifically had training as in the police, military, FBI, ect.
I don't necessary agree that people will be safer in general if EVERYONE carried a weapon. I think it would definitely reduce incidents of mass shootings; vast majority of those shooters specifically picked locations where they are not likely to encounter armed resistance. But that would be offset significantly by increase number of negligent discharges and rage killing instances.
Now if teachers or professors can be given the choice to armed themselves and be trained periodically to effectively defend themselves and students, I think that would be an effective deterrence for at least these school shootings.
I don't think that quite works out. Think about it, somebody starts shooting in a dark movie theater, then somebody else shoots at him, then in the confusion, a third guy starts shooting at the second guy. It just wouldn't work out. On top of that real life isn't an action movie, people freeze and make bad decisions under life or death levels of stress unless they've specifically trained to deal with that type of stress like spec ops for instance. The average person though is going to have the accuracy of Michael J. Fox and is very likely to injure somebody innocent in the process.
So you would rather the teachers' and students' lives be at the mercy of a lunatic than to give them a chance fighting back and stopping the manic because innocent bystanders (whom, I remind you, are already at risk of being shot and killed) MIGHT get hit by accident. If I was in the room, I'd take my chances with the person with the gun who ISN'T intended on shooting and killing me.
Yes, like I said, real life is not an action movie. People don't pull a die hard and rise to the occasion. People panic, make bad decisions, who's to say some panicked 60 year old teacher wouldn't reaction shot a kid or another teacher? Unless they've specifically had training as in the police, military, FBI, ect.
Hence my early statement of "Now if teachers or professors can be given the choice to armed themselves and be trained periodically to effectively defend themselves and students, I think that would be an effective deterrence for at least these school shootings."
And you didn't answer my question, would you rather take your chances with a mass shooter who is intended on shooting you or an armed teacher who might accidentally shoot you in the process of stopping the mass shooter?
Great and apt quote from Reagan for the situation:
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.
Great and apt quote from Reagan for the situation:
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.
How is that apt for the situation? Are people saying the shooter isn't to blame?
Does it matter? It's huge, has a single currency for the majority of its states, has law common to all the Union (though not to the extent of the US) and has a population in the hundreds of millions, same as the USA. For the purpose of this discussion, we can easily compare the EU to the USA, even if one of them isn't a country and the other is.
Incorrect. Europe has 50 countries, but only 19 use the €. 19 out of 50 is not a majority. 26 out of 50 would be a majority. Please keep it real, bruh.
Some sources say the shooter was born in London. I wonder how long he has been in the US? If he spent his formative years elsewhere, that may have contributed to him feeling isolated. When my wife's relatives immigrated here, we helped some of their kids adjust. It certainly helped when they made friends and felt welcomed.
Didn't some guy kill a bunch of people and injure like 40 others with his car this summer in Austria?
Indeed. It was a Muslim immigrant causing trouble for the people of Austria, of course. Murderous, ungrateful scum. Killed a 4 year old boy...Bet this **** was thinking "Islam...I...slam...this van...into this crowd of infidels. Good...Allahu Akbar..."
Meanwhile... Saudi Arabia airstrikes Yemen and kills 131 civilians at a wedding and not a peep from Obama from that incident this week.
People are more affected by tragedies in their own city or country. Yemen is half a world away, so of course not many people here will care about it. Not to mention there are almost seven billion people on Earth. You can't care about everyone and everything going on in the world. I've also read a few times before that, to put it bluntly, the human brain is only capable of giving a shit about 150-200 people. I think it has something to do with our 100,000 year history living in hunter gatherer groups of just 50-100 individuals. After a while, that 80,568th person just becomes another face, and it's hard to feel any significant emotions if something happens to them.
Great and apt quote from Reagan for the situation:
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.
How is that apt for the situation? Are people saying the shooter isn't to blame?
Certainly doesn't seems like that the focus here. Most of what people are discussing is changing society, that would indicate that it's somehow responsible for the individuals action. You see such an approach from legal defense all the time, the killer was bullied or abused when growing up, as if that should absolve the individuals crime. Like that rich kid that killed 4 people and defense's "affluenza" argument was able to convince the judge let him get away with no jail time.
How is that apt for the situation? Are people saying the shooter isn't to blame?
Certainly doesn't seems like that the focus here. Most of what people are discussing is changing society, that would indicate that it's somehow responsible for the individuals action. You see such an approach from legal defense all the time, the killer was bullied or abused when growing up, as if that should absolve the individuals crime. Like that rich kid that killed 4 people and defense's "affluenza" argument was able to convince the judge let him get away with no jail time.
I think you're confusing personal responsibility with macro contributions. When dealing with a large group of people, trends develop and recede. Often times, those trends have contributing factors, and by analyzing those factors you can develop a program to lessen or develop those trends. For example, education was developed as a program to counter rising smoking rates. It's not about removing responsibility from the smokers' actions from them, it's about creating a counter program to statistically lessen the rate of smoking.
Similarly, when speaking about how to lessen the rate of such occurrences, people are not proposing that responsibility for these actions be removed from the perpetrators. They are taking a macro view of the situation, examining what they believe to be contributors or enablers of the situation, and proposing ways of lessening those occurrences.
I don't necessary agree that people will be safer in general if EVERYONE carried a weapon. I think it would definitely reduce incidents of mass shootings; vast majority of those shooters specifically picked locations where they are not likely to encounter armed resistance. But that would be offset significantly by increase number of negligent discharges and rage killing instances.
Now if teachers or professors can be given the choice to armed themselves and be trained periodically to effectively defend themselves and students, I think that would be an effective deterrence for at least these school shootings.
I don't think that quite works out. Think about it, somebody starts shooting in a dark movie theater, then somebody else shoots at him, then in the confusion, a third guy starts shooting at the second guy. It just wouldn't work out. On top of that real life isn't an action movie, people freeze and make bad decisions under life or death levels of stress unless they've specifically trained to deal with that type of stress like spec ops for instance. The average person though is going to have the accuracy of Michael J. Fox and is very likely to injure somebody innocent in the process.
So you would rather the teachers' and students' lives be at the mercy of a lunatic than to give them a chance fighting back and stopping the manic because innocent bystanders (whom, I remind you, are already at risk of being shot and killed) MIGHT get hit by accident. If I was in the room, I'd take my chances with the person with the gun who ISN'T intended on shooting and killing me.
Yes, like I said, real life is not an action movie. People don't pull a die hard and rise to the occasion. People panic, make bad decisions, who's to say some panicked 60 year old teacher wouldn't reaction shot a kid or another teacher? Unless they've specifically had training as in the police, military, FBI, ect.
Hence my early statement of "Now if teachers or professors can be given the choice to armed themselves and be trained periodically to effectively defend themselves and students, I think that would be an effective deterrence for at least these school shootings."
And you didn't answer my question, would you rather take your chances with a mass shooter who is intended on shooting you or an armed teacher who might accidentally shoot you in the process of stopping the mass shooter?
I don't think that's really something you can train for through traditional methods. I keep bringing up spec ops as an example; they've gone through training that can give PTSD. As in, if you haven't been in simulated actual combat; extreme conditions, the person is not going to be effective.
How is that apt for the situation? Are people saying the shooter isn't to blame?
Certainly doesn't seems like that the focus here. Most of what people are discussing is changing society, that would indicate that it's somehow responsible for the individuals action. You see such an approach from legal defense all the time, the killer was bullied or abused when growing up, as if that should absolve the individuals crime. Like that rich kid that killed 4 people and defense's "affluenza" argument was able to convince the judge let him get away with no jail time.
I think you're confusing personal responsibility with macro contributions. When dealing with a large group of people, trends develop and recede. Often times, those trends have contributing factors, and by analyzing those factors you can develop a program to lessen or develop those trends. For example, education was developed as a program to counter rising smoking rates. It's not about removing responsibility from the smokers' actions from them, it's about creating a counter program to statistically lessen the rate of smoking.
Similarly, when speaking about how to lessen the rate of such occurrences, people are not proposing that responsibility for these actions be removed from the perpetrators. They are taking a macro view of the situation, examining what they believe to be contributors or enablers of the situation, and proposing ways of lessening those occurrences.
The two are entirely separate situations.
There's no confusion here. I'm talking about focusing on primary driver not the auxiliary factors. You, like most of the posters here, are still concerned with what society has failed to do, in doing so lessen the accountability of the one ultimately responsible for the atrocity.
I don't disagree with your main point though. The environment does have a hand in instigating these mass shooting even if it's not the root cause for these tragedies. At the risk of sounding like the local preacher, this is especially true in contemporary American culture which celebrate immoral and materialistic pursues. Criminals like these mass shooters share mass media with head of states and movie/TV stars. I'm not religious by any means but I do believe a healthy individual have spiritual needs. Not saying one should completely devote themselves to one religion and become an intolerant bible thumper, but maybe we should at least consider the possibility that a "contributing factor" in frequency of these type of mass shootings is the lacking of that spirituality in our modern culture?
So you would rather the teachers' and students' lives be at the mercy of a lunatic than to give them a chance fighting back and stopping the manic because innocent bystanders (whom, I remind you, are already at risk of being shot and killed) MIGHT get hit by accident. If I was in the room, I'd take my chances with the person with the gun who ISN'T intended on shooting and killing me.
Yes, like I said, real life is not an action movie. People don't pull a die hard and rise to the occasion. People panic, make bad decisions, who's to say some panicked 60 year old teacher wouldn't reaction shot a kid or another teacher? Unless they've specifically had training as in the police, military, FBI, ect.
Hence my early statement of "Now if teachers or professors can be given the choice to armed themselves and be trained periodically to effectively defend themselves and students, I think that would be an effective deterrence for at least these school shootings."
And you didn't answer my question, would you rather take your chances with a mass shooter who is intended on shooting you or an armed teacher who might accidentally shoot you in the process of stopping the mass shooter?
I don't think that's really something you can train for through traditional methods. I keep bringing up spec ops as an example; they've gone through training that can give PTSD. As in, if you haven't been in simulated actual combat; extreme conditions, the person is not going to be effective.
You sound like you know a lot about actual combat. I will defer to your expertise then.
There's no confusion here. I'm talking about focusing on primary driver not the auxiliary factors. You, like most of the posters here, are still concerned with what society has failed to do, in doing so lessen the accountability of the one ultimately responsible for the atrocity.
I don't disagree with your main point though. The environment does have a hand in instigating these mass shooting even if it's not the root cause for these tragedies. At the risk of sounding like the local preacher, this is especially true in contemporary American culture which celebrate immoral and materialistic pursues. Criminals like these mass shooters share mass media with head of states and movie/TV stars. I'm not religious by any means but I do believe a healthy individual have spiritual needs. Not saying one should completely devote themselves to one religion and become an intolerant bible thumper, but maybe we should at least consider the possibility that a "contributing factor" in frequency of these type of mass shootings is the lacking of that spirituality in our modern culture?
No, not at all. I'm saying that they are completely separate, and acknowledging one doesn't lessen the accountability of the other. It's just the nature of statistics - the individual can be accountable to his own failings while the statistics of the group can be influenced by factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of an individual failure occurring.
Relating it to one of the graphs in this thread, someone showed a correlation between gun ownership rates and crime rates. If we concede a causal relationship there, would then the populace owning less guns in the future would not make the individual criminals any less responsible when they committed a crime. Not would those who gave up gun ownership during this hypothetical period be any more responsible. It would simply be a tool that could be used as part of a policy to lessen the crime rate.
So you would rather the teachers' and students' lives be at the mercy of a lunatic than to give them a chance fighting back and stopping the manic because innocent bystanders (whom, I remind you, are already at risk of being shot and killed) MIGHT get hit by accident. If I was in the room, I'd take my chances with the person with the gun who ISN'T intended on shooting and killing me.
Yes, like I said, real life is not an action movie. People don't pull a die hard and rise to the occasion. People panic, make bad decisions, who's to say some panicked 60 year old teacher wouldn't reaction shot a kid or another teacher? Unless they've specifically had training as in the police, military, FBI, ect.
Hence my early statement of "Now if teachers or professors can be given the choice to armed themselves and be trained periodically to effectively defend themselves and students, I think that would be an effective deterrence for at least these school shootings."
And you didn't answer my question, would you rather take your chances with a mass shooter who is intended on shooting you or an armed teacher who might accidentally shoot you in the process of stopping the mass shooter?
I don't think that's really something you can train for through traditional methods. I keep bringing up spec ops as an example; they've gone through training that can give PTSD. As in, if you haven't been in simulated actual combat; extreme conditions, the person is not going to be effective.
You sound like you know a lot about actual combat. I will defer to your expertise then.
.
Never said I did. I'm just going by studies that I've read.
Hence my early statement of "Now if teachers or professors can be given the choice to armed themselves and be trained periodically to effectively defend themselves and students, I think that would be an effective deterrence for at least these school shootings."
And you didn't answer my question, would you rather take your chances with a mass shooter who is intended on shooting you or an armed teacher who might accidentally shoot you in the process of stopping the mass shooter?
I don't think that's really something you can train for through traditional methods. I keep bringing up spec ops as an example; they've gone through training that can give PTSD. As in, if you haven't been in simulated actual combat; extreme conditions, the person is not going to be effective.
You sound like you know a lot about actual combat. I will defer to your expertise then.
.
Never said I did. I'm just going by studies that I've read.
I did go to OTS though.
Woah Officer Training School...
If you can lead men in the military after couple of months of training, I'm sure 60 yo teachers have no issue learning to defend themselves with some training. Even if it's between an psycho killer and an armed but inadequately trained teacher, I'd still take my chances with the teacher.
Incorrect. Europe has 50 countries, but only 19 use the €. 19 out of 50 is not a majority. 26 out of 50 would be a majority. Please keep it real, bruh.
Well seeing as I was talking about the EU specifically... yeah, the majority of its states use the Euro.
Mass shootings aren't getting more common — and are a tiny share of all shootings
There has been a rash of heavily publicized mass shootings in recent years. But those incidents, while tragic, are a tiny sliver of America's gun homicide problem. Mayors Against Illegal Guns, analyzing FBI data, found that fewer than 1 percent of homicide victims in 2010 were killed in incidents where four or more people died.
A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report from 2013 identified 78 "public mass shootings" between 1983 and 2012, which claimed 547 lives. For context, 11,068 people (more than 20 times the mass shooting toll over three decades) died in gun homicides in 2011 alone — and murder is, in general, on the decline, so that number was higher in the 1980s and '90s. "While tragic and shocking, public mass shootings account for few of the murders or non-negligent homicides related to firearms that occur annually in the United States," CRS concluded.
Also, mass shootings are, contrary to popular perception, not actually increasing. James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University, has found that the number of mass shooting victims, perpetrators, and incidents didn't change much from 1980 to 2010:
In 2012, Mother Jones put out an analysis coming to a different conclusion, arguing that mass shootings were on the upswing. As Brad Plumer explained, they were just looking at different numbers than Fox, and Mother Jones's numbers excluded certain types of mass shootings. "Fox is looking at all mass shootings involving four or more victims — that's the standard FBI definition," Plumer wrote. "Mother Jones, by contrast, had a much more restrictive definition, excluding things like armed robbery or gang violence."
Incorrect. Europe has 50 countries, but only 19 use the €. 19 out of 50 is not a majority. 26 out of 50 would be a majority. Please keep it real, bruh.
Well seeing as I was talking about the EU specifically... yeah, the majority of its states use the Euro.
Incorrect. The person you quoted specifically said Europe. You responded with what I quoted, then after that you mentioned the EU, then you reverted back to Europe again later. The EU does not equate to Europe. Keep it factually accurate, bruh.
How is that apt for the situation? Are people saying the shooter isn't to blame?
Certainly doesn't seems like that the focus here. Most of what people are discussing is changing society, that would indicate that it's somehow responsible for the individuals action. You see such an approach from legal defense all the time, the killer was bullied or abused when growing up, as if that should absolve the individuals crime. Like that rich kid that killed 4 people and defense's "affluenza" argument was able to convince the judge let him get away with no jail time.
I think you're confusing personal responsibility with macro contributions. When dealing with a large group of people, trends develop and recede. Often times, those trends have contributing factors, and by analyzing those factors you can develop a program to lessen or develop those trends. For example, education was developed as a program to counter rising smoking rates. It's not about removing responsibility from the smokers' actions from them, it's about creating a counter program to statistically lessen the rate of smoking.
Similarly, when speaking about how to lessen the rate of such occurrences, people are not proposing that responsibility for these actions be removed from the perpetrators. They are taking a macro view of the situation, examining what they believe to be contributors or enablers of the situation, and proposing ways of lessening those occurrences.
I cannot believe there are people who make the argument of "society will be safer if everyone had guns" with a straight face. I thought it was some kind of a parody on gun nuts.
I cannot believe there are people who make the argument of "society will be safer if everyone had guns" with a straight face. I thought it was some kind of a parody on gun nuts.
One day we're gonna see a real-life Grand Theft Auto Online world :D
@gamerguru100 said:
@Gaming-Planet said:
Meanwhile... Saudi Arabia airstrikes Yemen and kills 131 civilians at a wedding and not a peep from Obama from that incident this week.
People are more affected by tragedies in their own city or country. Yemen is half a world away, so of course not many people here will care about it. Not to mention there are almost seven billion people on Earth. You can't care about everyone and everything going on in the world. I've also read a few times before that, to put it bluntly, the human brain is only capable of giving a shit about 150-200 people. I think it has something to do with our 100,000 year history living in hunter gatherer groups of just 50-100 individuals. After a while, that 80,568th person just becomes another face, and it's hard to feel any significant emotions if something happens to them.
Incorrect. Europe has 50 countries, but only 19 use the €. 19 out of 50 is not a majority. 26 out of 50 would be a majority. Please keep it real, bruh.
Well seeing as I was talking about the EU specifically... yeah, the majority of its states use the Euro.
Incorrect. The person you quoted specifically said Europe. You responded with what I quoted, then after that you mentioned the EU, then you reverted back to Europe again later. The EU does not equate to Europe. Keep it factually accurate, bruh.
Meh. I used Europe and EU indistinctly, quite like I might use USA and America indistinctly. I'm sorry if that bothered you, but when it came to an actual comparison between the two, I felt I was being clear enough in referencing the EU.
How is that apt for the situation? Are people saying the shooter isn't to blame?
Certainly doesn't seems like that the focus here. Most of what people are discussing is changing society, that would indicate that it's somehow responsible for the individuals action. You see such an approach from legal defense all the time, the killer was bullied or abused when growing up, as if that should absolve the individuals crime. Like that rich kid that killed 4 people and defense's "affluenza" argument was able to convince the judge let him get away with no jail time.
I think you're confusing personal responsibility with macro contributions. When dealing with a large group of people, trends develop and recede. Often times, those trends have contributing factors, and by analyzing those factors you can develop a program to lessen or develop those trends. For example, education was developed as a program to counter rising smoking rates. It's not about removing responsibility from the smokers' actions from them, it's about creating a counter program to statistically lessen the rate of smoking.
Similarly, when speaking about how to lessen the rate of such occurrences, people are not proposing that responsibility for these actions be removed from the perpetrators. They are taking a macro view of the situation, examining what they believe to be contributors or enablers of the situation, and proposing ways of lessening those occurrences.
The two are entirely separate situations.
Well said.
Seconded. One of the biggest problem concerning this is that the CDC is prohibited from studying macro trends revolving around gun violence. We need to understand these trends and figure out a way to tackle the issue.
Log in to comment