Crime School Shooting In Wisconsin

[spamking]

One thing that the topic of guns sure does is highlight exactly how huge the rift is between people of different ideologies.

"You don't care about kids dying. You just care about keeping your guns."
"You don't care about these kids dying. You just want to take my guns away to have a false sense of security."

Stop and think about these two views that continue to be put forth. The second sentence in each of those statements doesn't matter. Nothing said after the first sentences COULD matter. Each side is literally accusing the others of being indifferent to innocent children being murdered. At that point, it's not a debate about policy or the 2nd Amendment. It's just people telling each other they're vile.

I'm admittedly pretty pro 2A. I don't own guns anymore, but used to. But innocent children dying absolutely fucking matters. The question isn't whether I think gun ownership matters more than kids lives. The question is whether policy changes would ACTUALLY make a difference and save kids from dying. And people should keep an open mind about it. Until the discussion is had on those terms, it's pointless having it. If each side TRULY thinks the other doesn't care about children being massacred, there's no hope of moving the conversation forward.

The point you're missing that has been brought up every time something like this happens is that current laws and policies already address most of these issues. People intent on harming others don't care about rules or policies.

I won't apologize for not being willing to give up any of my firearms to appease someone else. I'm also not going to apologize for continuing to push for protecting schools like we do other "important" buildings/people. There is a conversation to be had, but the gun control organizations can't make any money off of it . . .

Recently, I attended a high school football game at a local school in a community where a shooting had happened at another high school nearby. To address this issue the school hired more security personnel, limited entry points, and set up a scanner/metal detector to check folks attending the game. I didn't feel like I was watching a game in a prison.

 

[Andy Capp]

Ahh ok. I wonder what the motive was. Probably was some autistic.

Yeah, I'm totally sure in the absence of any information that she had autism because reasons. SMH.

 

[deadshot138]

Yeah, I'm totally sure in the absence of any information that she had autism because reasons. SMH.

Because pattern recognition. Adam Lanza was autistic. I'm not looking up others for you because I don't care enough.

 

[mkess101]

The point you're missing that has been brought up every time something like this happens is that current laws and policies already address most of these issues. People intent on harming others don't care about rules or policies.

I won't apologize for not being willing to give up any of my firearms to appease someone else. I'm also not going to apologize for continuing to push for protecting schools like we do other "important" buildings/people. There is a conversation to be had, but the gun control organizations can't make any money off of it . . .

Recently, I attended a high school football game at a local school in a community where a shooting had happened at another high school nearby. To address this issue the school hired more security personnel, limited entry points, and set up a scanner/metal detector to check folks attending the game. I didn't feel like I was watching a game in a prison.

Missing it? I sort of addressed that directly when I said "Do more gun control laws ACTUALLY reduce the chances of these tragedies"? And I don't know all the answers. I think some proposals absolutely don't, but I also think it's irresponsible to not have an open mind.

My overarching point was about HOW the debate is framed. The nuts and bolts don't, CAN'T matter if each side accuses the other of "not caring about children being murdered". I don't think that's a controversial point to make.

 

[My Spot]

you got nothin, huh?

You quoted me first.

 

[spamking]

Missing it? I sort of addressed that directly when I said "Do more gun control laws ACTUALLY reduce the chances of these tragedies"? And I don't know all the answers. I think some proposals absolutely don't, but I also think it's irresponsible to not have an open mind.

Still missed what I said. Existing laws address them. You're implying that more laws would have an impact. I don't know all of the answers either, but when current laws exist and are continuously ignored I'm not confident that yet more laws would impact anyone other than current law-abiding folks.

My overarching point was about HOW the debate is framed. The nuts and bolts don't, CAN'T matter if each side accuses the other of "not caring about children being murdered". I don't think that's a controversial point to make.

Most of us involved have an idea of how things are framed.

 

[mkess101]

Still missed what I said. Existing laws address them. You're implying that more laws would have an impact. I don't know all of the answers either, but when current laws exist and are continuously ignored I'm not confident that yet more laws would impact anyone other than current law-abiding folks.

Most of us involved have an idea of how things are framed.

I'm implying that? For the most part I'm in agreement with you. I don't think keeping an open mind in that there's at least potentially more that could be done to curb things like this from happening is controversial. Any added laws would need to show specifically why they're different from what's already on the books and why they'd work better than what we have now. But saying that is different than just closing the entire discussion down. I too am "not confident" that more laws would help. That's different than being unwilling to even participate in discussions about them which it seems many aren't.

And the reason they aren't (and the reason plenty on the other side aren't) is what I outlined in how the dialogue too often seems to start. So you can say "most of us know how it's framed" and yeah probably plenty do. But we still damn sure have plenty of examples of each side saying the other is ambivalent about children being murdered. And that seems to take over the conversation.

 

[Hog-train]

Yeah, I'm totally sure in the absence of any information that she had autism because reasons. SMH.

A very high percentage of these school shooters are autistic.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

I doubt @KAZSoliloquy understands this simple logic.

so let's make sure that malicious person can't get a gun. problem solved.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

Wow they have this person's entire internet activity in like three days. Still haven't said shit about the guy who shot Trump.

 

[djacobox372]

A very high percentage of these school shooters are autistic.

By what measure? The definition of autism has expanded so much that it includes nearly everybody who isn't an extroverted prom king/queen.

 

[djacobox372]

Wow they have this person's entire internet activity in like three days. Still haven't said shit about the guy who shot Trump.

WTF are you talking about? They said all there was to say in the first few days, he just wasn't very interesting.

 

[Andy Capp]

A very high percentage of these school shooters are autistic.

How high? Have you got any supporting data I can have a look at?

Having said that, let's say it's a huge number like 70% just for the sake of argument in this particular exchange. I think it strongly supports what @BFoe was saying about how increased support for people with autism and other mental illnesses would very likely result in fewer school shootings. I'd go so far as to say it's self-evident that if you invest in intervening early on in a positive way with people more likely to turn to these kinds of actions, you may reduce the problem, and it seems unlikely to make the problem worse.

So, when people stigmatise them instead, foster bullying, especially online, vote in politicians who run on cutting services to poor people (who are less likely to have any resources of their own to devote to their children's special needs), and cutting spending on public education and healthcare, I think it's reasonable to suggest they ought to think more about the consequences of their actions.

To be fair, though, there is also massive influence on young people from the poisonous way social media algorithms are made to work. These days a kid just has to suggest being a bit down after a bad day in a post to be hit with suggestions about suicide. It ought to be criminal.

 

[spamking]

so let's make sure that malicious person can't get a gun. problem solved.

How do you propose to do that? Laws are already in place to account for this and haven't stopped folks.

 

[My Spot]

How do you propose to do that? Laws are already in place to account for this and haven't stopped folks.

By banning all guns like he keeps suggesting, silly.