111–120 of 125 posts
> on average, mass killings involving firearms occur approximately every two weeks in the US This seems significantly higher than what I'd think. Do most mass killings not make the news? How is this defined?
Things that we can do about this: 1) Firearm control - complicated political issue, with reasonable people on both sides of the issue. And even if there were federal (executive, legislative, and judicial) political unanimity on action (there is not and can't be for decades), it remains a larger practical problem than in any country that has so far banned guns. State and city-level action has not proven very effective…
5) Media policy. Terrorism and lone wolf massacres feed trough 24/7 catastropheporn in the news. Let's face it. Our society is entertained by news reporting. Discussing it with others is fun. May be a taboo to say it aloud.
Even as things are, the US media omits a great deal of information about terrorism and mass shootings out of a mix of sensitivity and caution.
[flagged]
Can you cite some evidence on this? I haven’t heard about any right-wing terror cells in the US. The attackers appear to be “lone wolves”. They may have been radicalised to be right-wing online, but I haven’t seen any evidence of some organised group arranging or encouraging these attacks. Either way, the two (radicalisation and contagion) aren’t mutually exclusive. In my opinion a large part of the motivation behind…
But there is absolutely crowdsourced coordination on identification of targets, weapon platforms, and methods. And as everyone on HN already knows, crowdsourcing is a highly effective tool for getting things done. It works just as well for terrorism as anything else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you should get downvoted for sharing your opinion, but who do you really think would benefit from regulating firearms? There is a very good reason the constitution provisioned firearms and I think people are starting to forget.
if you think people with automatic rifles are going to be anything other than a minor annoyance to an organized army you're in for a shock. On this very site there's been articles about the gorgon stare. Rifles don't compete against that technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't even need firearms to inflict mass causalities, so magazine limits are political theater imho. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/19/japan-arson-attack-on-anime-... Firearm restrictions also inhibits civilians from resisting state violence if it ever came down to it. I've heard the tanks/planes arguments, but if those are so effective why are we still in Afghanistan? (hint: they have firearms)
> magazine limits are political theater imho Wow. Seriously? The best chance of subduing (by any means) an attacker is when they aren’t actively shooting at you. That only happens when they need to stop to reload or change weapons.
> on average, mass killings involving firearms occur approximately every two weeks in the US This seems significantly higher than what I'd think. Do most mass killings not make the news? How is this defined?
You could check a popular reference source to become familiar with the factual background. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
Not saying it's not a "mass shooting", but the thesis in the OP article needs to be understood in such a context.
Gang violence/vengeance isn't going to be influenced by media or copycat effects one iota.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt this. Reason clickbait works is because it's more attention grabbing. It's more attention grabbing because it appeals to human innate fears. And even if clickbait is banned and subscription mandatory, media would be in a race to the bottom. Just a slightly different one.
Reason clickbait works is because it is needed to drive page views. In a subscription model, media sites would have an incentive to put out stories that are interesting beyond the first page view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Laws yes, substantive laws... debatable. More significant measures like requiring a license or limiting magazine capacity are somehow characterized as over reach. Would be interested to hear how that is rationalized.
Because we take the right to bear arms very seriously in the US. In our constitution that right is enumerated second, just after the one about freedom of speech and religion. Licensing is a mechanism of control over who can and cannot exercise this right, and such mechanisms are often abused to suppress minorities and dissidents, which is contrary to the reason the right is enumerated in the first place. Similarly th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could check a popular reference source to become familiar with the factual background. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
Right, so the majority of these incidents are gang-related activity. Not saying it's not a "mass shooting", but the thesis in the OP article needs to be understood in such a context. Gang violence/vengeance isn't going to be influenced by media or copycat effects one iota.
I'm not endorsing you, I'm suggesting you consult available reference material before you start asking rhetorical questions. A Socratic/tendentious style of argument where you solicit participation from your interlocutors doesn't play well here. If you have a point it's better to just make it and back it up with reference material as many participants have busy lives of their own.