School shooting at Texas Elementary school, several children reported dead

[Phoenixmgs]

So you admit you know absolutely nothing about any issue, and are just bullshit for the sake of being a contrarian, and in no way debate in good faith.
I mean good to know, I can add you to my ignored list. Good luck with your just made-up understanding of the world.

I've literally never posted in bad faith once. So you'd rather pass an assault rifle ban than have equal money distributions to schools?

I don't ignore him because he is a deeply unserious human and seeing him have the exact wrong take on every topic is always fun.

You do realize every take I have is from an expert in the subject. When you were trying to argue nutrition with me, you weren't arguing with me but people like Peter Attia, Tim Spector, Sarah Hallberg, etc. I'm not going to believe someone on a gaming forum is more knowledgeable than those experts. Funny that you think all these very smart and credentialed people have the exact wrong take on things.

See its not the exact wrong take that actually annoys me. Its the blatant, fundamental disregard for science and research.

"Cows don't contribute to global warming."
"Here's a research article showing cows contribute to global warming."
"Those numbers are wrong, doesn't count, bring me something real."

Makes you wonder if the dude just wants a cow to fart in his face. Maybe its all like a kink thing?

Cows only contribute to global warming if they are emitting a surplus of GHG that the environment is not capable of handling. Every animal emits GHG, telling me how much they do with no context tells me nothing.

And I'm saying that's an irrelevant point to make, because nobody ever thought it was going to 100% fix everything.

You make up ridiculous standards that no one is saying. No one thing is 100% responsible for gun violence (I'm guessing a lame response of "duh, guns" is forthcoming). I'm not asking to do the one thing that will 100% fix gun violence because that doesn't exist. I'm asking to go in basic logical priorities. Say we have the following things that contribute to gun violence; Thing_A 41%, Thing_B 23%, Thing_C 17%, Thing_D 12%, Thing_E 7%. Let's go in order of importance and target Thing_A first, then Thing_B, etc. Why start at Thing_E?

You cannot possibly make a new policy unless it completely fixes everything.

Yep, sounds like US politics

Yep, never said that, Silvanus purposefully changes the argument to something I never said.

 

[Silvanus]

You make up ridiculous standards that no one is saying. No one thing is 100% responsible for gun violence (I'm guessing a lame response of "duh, guns" is forthcoming). I'm not asking to do the one thing that will 100% fix gun violence because that doesn't exist. I'm asking to go in basic logical priorities. Say we have the following things that contribute to gun violence; Thing_A 41%, Thing_B 23%, Thing_C 17%, Thing_D 12%, Thing_E 7%. Let's go in order of importance and target Thing_A first, then Thing_B, etc. Why start at Thing_E?

...why not just do whichever ones you can?

It's not as if each individual factor exists completely separately from the others. The mental health crisis, poverty, political disillusionment etc all intertwine. As does access to guns-- the other factors still can't lead to gun violence if the people cannot easily obtain guns. You can't neatly separate it all out.

For the sake of argument, let's say the single biggest factor in driving gun violence is poverty (and there's plenty of evidence that is indeed the case, at least in some countries). And let's say the mental health crisis is #2.

If we were to follow your logic-- "you can't start at #2! Fix #1 first!" -- that would mean we should arbitrarily delay focusing on mental health support until... poverty is eradicated. Which will take decades at the very least, even with concerted effort, and more likely centuries.

Why not introduce other measures in the meantime? There's literally no reason the government would need to completely solve one issue before looking at others.

 

[Cheetodust]

I've literally never posted in bad faith once. So you'd rather pass an assault rifle ban than have equal money distributions to schools?


You do realize every take I have is from an expert in the subject. When you were trying to argue nutrition with me, you weren't arguing with me but people like Peter Attia, Tim Spector, Sarah Hallberg, etc. I'm not going to believe someone on a gaming forum is more knowledgeable than those experts. Funny that you think all these very smart and credentialed people have the exact wrong take on things.


Cows only contribute to global warming if they are emitting a surplus of GHG that the environment is not capable of handling. Every animal emits GHG, telling me how much they do with no context tells me nothing.


You make up ridiculous standards that no one is saying. No one thing is 100% responsible for gun violence (I'm guessing a lame response of "duh, guns" is forthcoming). I'm not asking to do the one thing that will 100% fix gun violence because that doesn't exist. I'm asking to go in basic logical priorities. Say we have the following things that contribute to gun violence; Thing_A 41%, Thing_B 23%, Thing_C 17%, Thing_D 12%, Thing_E 7%. Let's go in order of importance and target Thing_A first, then Thing_B, etc. Why start at Thing_E?


Yep, never said that, Silvanus purposefully changes the argument to something I never said.

Yup that's the good stuff. Continue being you.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

...why not just do whichever ones you can?

It's not as if each individual factor exists completely separately from the others. The mental health crisis, poverty, political disillusionment etc all intertwine. As does access to guns-- the other factors still can't lead to gun violence if the people cannot easily obtain guns. You can't neatly separate it all out.

For the sake of argument, let's say the single biggest factor in driving gun violence is poverty (and there's plenty of evidence that is indeed the case, at least in some countries). And let's say the mental health crisis is #2.

If we were to follow your logic-- "you can't start at #2! Fix #1 first!" -- that would mean we should arbitrarily delay focusing on mental health support until... poverty is eradicated. Which will take decades at the very least, even with concerted effort, and more likely centuries.

Why not introduce other measures in the meantime? There's literally no reason the government would need to completely solve one issue before looking at others.

Again, not my argument. Every time a mass shooting happens, everyone gets up in arms about gun laws acting like that is some magical fix when it will hardly make an impact and we NEVER get to the other things that have far bigger impacts on gun violence. I'm not against the gun laws nor am I saying not to do them, but just pointing out they aren't gonna do much. It's like a friend ordering a pizza and saying do you want extra cheese on it from a bad cheap pizza place? Sure, but I'd much prefer getting a pizza from a much better place. I don't understand why so much energy gets put into things that will have very little impact overall when that energy can be put into things that can have much bigger impacts. Regardless what the issue is, national conversation always gets routed to these minor things that don't do much because neither party actually wants to make any of the major changes that will have big impacts. Then, when such things actually go through, people think it's some big win while the status quo doesn't change and only continues to get worse.

 

[Silvanus]

Again, not my argument. Every time a mass shooting happens, everyone gets up in arms about gun laws acting like that is some magical fix when it will hardly make an impact and we NEVER get to the other things that have far bigger impacts on gun violence.

Oh, we don't, do we? It's funny that the other factors that lead to gun violence-- such as poverty and the mental health crisis-- tend to be focused by the same people who advocate gun regulation.

Meanwhile, those who dismiss or oppose gun regulation... also oppose measures to address poverty and mental health.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Oh, we don't, do we? It's funny that the other factors that lead to gun violence-- such as poverty and the mental health crisis-- tend to be focused by the same people who advocate gun regulation.

Meanwhile, those who dismiss or oppose gun regulation... also oppose measures to address poverty and mental health.

The clear conclusion from our results is that socioeconomic factors, such as income inequality, are the main driver of mass shootings in the United States

Does Income Inequality Drive U.S. Mass Shootings? - The Crime Report

Communities where income inequality is increasing are more likely to experience mass shootings, according to a study published in the upcoming December issue of the BMC Public Health Journal.

thecrimereport.org

When did I say I oppose gun regulation?

I said evenly distributing education funds will have far bigger impacts on gun violence than more gun legislation and then get accused of arguing in bad faith. Literally makes no sense.

So where's there a news story from a major network (that will allow for a possible national discussion vs a small or independent source that really wouldn't) about something like I mentioned vs just the tired gun legislation narrative after a mass shooting?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Governor Newsom proposing a 28th Amendment to the Constitution to end the gun violence crisis

Governor Gavin Newsom is proposing a 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to end the country's gun violence crisis.

www.cbsnews.com

Just virtue-signaling posturing from Newsom that claims to "end the gun violence crisis" in a way that will 100% not get pasted. And if it did get pasted, it wouldn't come close to ending the gun violence crisis. This is the exact bullshit narrative I'm sick of.

 

[Silvanus]

The clear conclusion from our results is that socioeconomic factors, such as income inequality, are the main driver of mass shootings in the United States

Does Income Inequality Drive U.S. Mass Shootings? - The Crime Report

Communities where income inequality is increasing are more likely to experience mass shootings, according to a study published in the upcoming December issue of the BMC Public Health Journal.

thecrimereport.org

Yes. And those who oppose/dismiss gun regulation also oppose/dismiss measures to address income inequality.

So where's the news story from a major network (that will allow for a possible national discussion vs a small or independent source that really wouldn't) about something like I mentioned vs just the tired gun legislation narrative after a mass shooting?

Are you genuinely asking where there's a news story about... poverty or mental health? You think these things are not the subject of reporting?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Eh, TBH, I'm ok with mental health not being mentioned in relation to gun violence, because it was commonly done so a few years back (dunno if it still is), with the intent of blaming everything on the mentally ill and getting support for further stigmatising them.

And, going to mention here that it is almost unheard of for a woman or girl to be doing the mass shooting, and normally the person responsible was known to be a threat before hand and often started out as domestic violence and kept going.

(Yes, I know, hence "almost" unheard of)

 

[Xprimentyl]

I'm asking to go in basic logical priorities. Say we have the following things that contribute to gun violence; Thing_A 41%, Thing_B 23%, Thing_C 17%, Thing_D 12%, Thing_E 7%. Let's go in order of importance and target Thing_A first, then Thing_B, etc. Why start at Thing_E?

If Thing_E is the tool that allows for Things_A-D to be the overwhelmingly massive problems they are, I'd say it's a constructive enough place to start, if not the MOST constructive place to start. Percentages don't objectively prove anything out, particularly when applied on their flat merits without real-world context and potentialities. I haven't heard much about "mass stabbings" in the news lately; have you? You sound like South Park's Captain Hindsight, stating the obvious after shit has already gone down, then flying away like some sort of hero. Just saying, with more tightly regulated access to unnecessarily destructive weapons, won't those with documented mental health issues, propensities towards violence, criminal histories, or just those randomly butt-hurt people who decide the world hasn't been fair enough to them, so ANYONE must pay have to get a bit more creative (for lack of a better term,) and the mass damage mitigated saving the lives of countless innocents? You wouldn't open a ward to treat rampant disease stemming from a sewer in a sewer simply because the disease is the "real" issue, then disregard the immediate filth surrounding its sufferers, so don't act like stemming [relatively] easy access to weapons isn't a reasonable place to start to try and help end this onslaught of mass violence our nation is experiencing.

I'd rather hear neither, but I'd prefer to hear "mentally ill man bites 2 two people on a subway" over "[same] mentally ill man kills 12 at a high school graduation with a military-grade weapon he bought a week before" any day.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I've literally never posted in bad faith once.

I have. I'm perfectly fine admitting that. The fact that you can't and claim that you never have...

So you'd rather pass an assault rifle ban than have equal money distributions to schools?

Imagine a world without the GOP and corporate democrates where we can have both.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Yes. And those who oppose/dismiss gun regulation also oppose/dismiss measures to address income inequality.



Are you genuinely asking where there's a news story about... poverty or mental health? You think these things are not the subject of reporting?

And those that oppose gun regulation usually live in places with less income inequality than those that are for gun regulations. California has one of the worst income inequalities and has a governor pushing for a full-on constitutional amendment for gun regulations instead of, you know, trying to fix income inequality in his state.

I'm asking for a news story after a mass shooting that is saying something like income inequality is the issue vs gun regulation. Funny how that never comes up as part of the narrative.

If Thing_E is the tool that allows for Things_A-D to be the overwhelmingly massive problems they are, I'd say it's a constructive enough place to start, if not the MOST constructive place to start. Percentages don't objectively prove anything out, particularly when applied on their flat merits without real-world context and potentialities. I haven't heard much about "mass stabbings" in the news lately; have you? You sound like South Park's Captain Hindsight, stating the obvious after shit has already gone down, then flying away like some sort of hero. Just saying, with more tightly regulated access to unnecessarily destructive weapons, won't those with documented mental health issues, propensities towards violence, criminal histories, or just those randomly butt-hurt people who decide the world hasn't been fair enough to them, so ANYONE must pay have to get a bit more creative (for lack of a better term,) and the mass damage mitigated saving the lives of countless innocents? You wouldn't open a ward to treat rampant disease stemming from a sewer in a sewer simply because the disease is the "real" issue, then disregard the immediate filth surrounding its sufferers, so don't act like stemming [relatively] easy access to weapons isn't a reasonable place to start to try and help end this onslaught of mass violence our nation is experiencing.

I'd rather hear neither, but I'd prefer to hear "mentally ill man bites 2 two people on a subway" over "[same] mentally ill man kills 12 at a high school graduation with a military-grade weapon he bought a week before" any day.

I'm not against, I think, all gun regulations mentioned in the thread or they shouldn't be done. The vast vast majority of states already have these regulations. There was an episode of It's Always Sunny about guns where Dee and Dennis were trying to prove to how easy it is to buy a gun and they keep getting turned away because of gun regulations. Most gun crime is also committed with guns illegally acquired so gun legislation isn't going to have a big impact on gun violence. Then, as I posted above, you have people like Gavin Newsom now pushing a full-on constitutional amendment that he knows is going nowhere with a message that will "end the gun violence crisis". That isn't helping anything and only causing the main culprit to be discussed even less than it already is, he's literally only doing it for media attention and nothing else. It's literally the line from Die Hard "Now, you listen to me, jerk-off, if you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem. Quit being a part of the fucking problem and put the other guy back on!"

Same thing with mental illness, which I'm of course not opposed to limiting access to guns but people with serious mental illness contribute to less than 1% of gun-related homicides. It should be done but it's like bullet point #100 on a list of things contributing to gun violence.

I have. I'm perfectly fine admitting that. The fact that you can't and claim that you never have...

Imagine a world without the GOP and corporate democrates where we can have both.

I have never posted in bad faith. If you don't wanna believe that, then you obviously don't have to obviously.

But you can only have so many things up for debate at a time. I prefer going in order of importance. When was the last time you saw the issue of school funding not being equally distributed even mentioned on a state or country level? If it never comes up, it's never gonna get done.

 

[Silvanus]

And those that oppose gun regulation usually live in places with less income inequality than those that are for gun regulations. California has one of the worst income inequalities and has a governor pushing for a full-on constitutional amendment for gun regulations instead of, you know, trying to fix income inequality in his state.

O.....k? Not really relevant to the fact that those who oppose gun regulation also oppose addressing poverty or mental health.

I'm asking for a news story after a mass shooting that is saying something like income inequality is the issue vs gun regulation. Funny how that never comes up as part of the narrative.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/16/opinions/safety-net-gun-violence-young-men-ludwig-tillmon/index.html

Why America's gun violence epidemic can't get the same research as Covid-19

As a leading cause of death, gun violence warrants the same preventive research as other public health crises including Covid-19.

www.msnbc.com

Opinion | People affected by gun violence need mental health care, not more cops

Chicago is cutting funds for counseling to the people who need it most, and then sending in more police officers.

www.nbcnews.com

^ found from about 2 mins googling, articles from mainstream American news media discussing gun violence links to poverty and mental health crisis.

 

[BrawlMan]

Uvalde parents, teachers sue gun maker, gun store over Robb elementary slaughter

The plaintiffs in the latest lawsuit over the Uvalde school shooting include the father...

www.expressnews.com

 

[BrawlMan]

3 Uvalde students being recognized for heroic actions during school shooting

Three children from Uvalde, Texas, were being recognized Monday for their heroic actions during the 2022 mass shooting at Robb Elementary School. Amerie Jo Garza, 10, tried to call 911 before she was fatally shot during the attack that left 21 people dead. She was with her best friend, Khloie...

www.google.com

 

[Phoenixmgs]

O.....k? Not really relevant to the fact that those who oppose gun regulation also oppose addressing poverty or mental health.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/16/opinions/safety-net-gun-violence-young-men-ludwig-tillmon/index.html

Why America's gun violence epidemic can't get the same research as Covid-19

As a leading cause of death, gun violence warrants the same preventive research as other public health crises including Covid-19.

www.msnbc.com

Opinion | People affected by gun violence need mental health care, not more cops

Chicago is cutting funds for counseling to the people who need it most, and then sending in more police officers.

www.nbcnews.com

^ found from about 2 mins googling, articles from mainstream American news media discussing gun violence links to poverty and mental health crisis.

Yet being homeless in Texas, you'll find better help than California.

The CNN one is the only one that might meet my criteria for what I was specifically asking about. I'm not sure if that article is in direct response to a mass shooting, it just seems in general response to gun violence increases. Also, the article basically proves my point in the first paragraph. The NBC article is asking for mental health care for the trauma of gun violence, and it's not about trying to stop gun violence but what to do once it affects someone. Also, communities with high violence need more cops, studies literally say more cops on the streets lowers violent crime. The MSNBC article doesn't even have the word "income" in the article. I'm not against studying anything but I think we kinda know what leads to violence at this point.


Wasn't I literally the first person to say gun legislation isn't gonna fix much and why don't we talk about the real issues that cause gun violence? I don't know why you get all upset at me for pointing out that no one is talking about the "rhino in the china stop" but the little fly buzzing around acting like getting rid of the fly is gonna stop all the china from being broken. And you all are still mad when I say I'm fine with literally all the gun regulations brought up, I'm not saying "let's not do it" but saying "let's do the stuff that actually has big impacts on the problem". I think ya'll argue just to disagree with me- at this point.

 

[Silvanus]

The CNN one is the only one that might meet my criteria for what I was specifically asking about. I'm not sure if that article is in direct response to a mass shooting, it just seems in general response to gun violence increases. Also, the article basically proves my point in the first paragraph. The NBC article is asking for mental health care for the trauma of gun violence, and it's not about trying to stop gun violence but what to do once it affects someone. Also, communities with high violence need more cops, studies literally say more cops on the streets lowers violent crime. The MSNBC article doesn't even have the word "income" in the article. I'm not against studying anything but I think we kinda know what leads to violence at this point.

None of which is relevant to your claim that media doesn't approach other causes of gun violence.

If you want to proceed onto different claims, that's fine, but first concede the original point.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

None of which is relevant to your claim that media doesn't approach other causes of gun violence.

If you want to proceed onto different claims, that's fine, but first concede the original point.

And how did you disprove my original point (quoted down below)? Even the discussion here was all about gun regulations, which was the whole reason I even commented to get the discussion to the main issues. Literally the governor of California made a big spiel about an asinine new amendment to the constitution about gun regulations. The news chooses to cover that stuff whereas they could just ignore that and talk about stuff like income inequality but no, they talk about assault rifle bans or whatever when an assault rifle ban wouldn't even ban the AR-15...

Again, not my argument. Every time a mass shooting happens, everyone gets up in arms about gun laws acting like that is some magical fix when it will hardly make an impact and we NEVER get to the other things that have far bigger impacts on gun violence. I'm not against the gun laws nor am I saying not to do them, but just pointing out they aren't gonna do much. It's like a friend ordering a pizza and saying do you want extra cheese on it from a bad cheap pizza place? Sure, but I'd much prefer getting a pizza from a much better place. I don't understand why so much energy gets put into things that will have very little impact overall when that energy can be put into things that can have much bigger impacts. Regardless what the issue is, national conversation always gets routed to these minor things that don't do much because neither party actually wants to make any of the major changes that will have big impacts. Then, when such things actually go through, people think it's some big win while the status quo doesn't change and only continues to get worse.

 

[Silvanus]

And how did you disprove my original point (quoted down below)?

?

You said the media doesn't address other factors in gun violence. Showing you numerous examples of the media doing exactly that is a direct and clear way to disprove it.

 

[Gergar12]

Gun control is fucking stupid. and I don't say that as someone who loves 2A, has 16 guns, or tolerates mass shootings. I said that in that it's a deterrent to bad government, and I am glad more left-wing people are grabbing guns, I hope they grab more potent ones too. It's like Jefferson stated in the Tree of Liberty and all that jazz. Yes, I have changed my position on it, I don't think the US military and police have enough ammunition or willpower to hit back at a revolting population, I think a portion of that ammunition will be in warehouses in the US that people can, and will interdict. I don't think they have enough willpower to kill scores of Americans who just want their homes not to be foreclosed on, a dignified retirement, etc.

And let's say they do have enough ammunition which they stored offshore for their drones, their jets, their tanks, and their ships. And let's say they do have enough willpower to kill the population, what is the point of that? Are all the 30 million people(And I am giving a high estimate) who are millionaires, police, etc. who could side with this tyrannical oligarchy of a government going to accept the fact they will have to clone people after they massacre large portions of this population and kill them when they revolt? I am sure there will be a revolt inside this elite as well.

As for the right-wing in this country, I don't think many will be left. I think many of them are in their 50s, and 60s right now. They aren't fighting their own children.

Well, we could always protest, how's that working out for you? How are the French protests doing, how are the many attempts at a general strike on Tik Tok doing, can you even protest BlackRock and many others, no, going into their buildings, and sitting there does not count as an effective protest.

When, and if in the future the Olgrachs have taken everything, I believe people will have nothing to lose. We are always 3 meals away from revolt.