41–50 of 93 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
well what about the idea that other countries adjusted their laws after such incidents and it made a difference in crime statistics?
Other countries are not defined by the idea that people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://twitter.com/CoyoteToledo/status/966832602383552513 US: I'm on fire CANADA: jump in the water US: water won't work, i need more fire UK: we used water when we caught fire US: it won't work for us we like fire too much US: I'm burning AUSTRALIA: here is a video of water putting out fire US: *stuffs fire in pockets*
Actually crime rates in Australia and the USA decreased similarly in the period following Australia's gun ban, despite America's inaction.
There has not been a single "mass shooting" in Australia since the gun ban. In the US, mass shootings decreased after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, and then increased after it expired 2004.
A drop in the number of deaths might just demonstrate an improvement in emergency medical procedures.
Perhaps they should do a case control study - places that had mass shootings vs places that didn’t? I’m pretty sure there have been no mass shootings at gun shows or gun clubs, I wonder if there might be some relationship there worth exploring?
Can someone say "Security Theater"? In cases like these I like to take the Freakonomics formula for risk, that outrage factors more into observed risk than actual danger. We're more worried about Terrorism than Heart Disease, even as we have far more control over the latter.
>Since 1996, there have been 16 multiple victim shootings in schools, or incidents involving 4 or more victims and at least 2 deaths by firearms, excluding the assailant. 17. Literally happening just as this was posted: https://www.wxyz.com/news/police-responding-to-reports-of-sh... Edit: Actually this may or may not meet the definition since their definition requires 4 or more casualties. Still.
1996: 16 children and their teacher shot dead
1997-2018: 0 shot deadAnalysis of two decades in the UK, where in 1997 they banned video games and mental illness: 1996: 16 children and their teacher shot dead 1997-2018: 0 shot dead
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's precisely because we have far more control over heart disease that we do not fear it. I can accept getting heart disease—maybe it was my fault?—much more readily that being actively, senselessly, killed by someone else. Terrorists know this too, which is why definitionally terrorism is meant to induce fear by way of its unpredictability. You wrote "security theater" to imply that we shouldn't attempt to address…
Logically, it seems more practical to worry about things you can control, than those that you can't. "There is only one way to happiness and that is to cease worrying about things which are beyond the power or our will." -Epictetus
(i.e. Things I can't control as an individual, we as a society might still be able to control or influence.)
it’s unlikely that any of them will prevent mass school shootings “The thing to remember is that these are extremely rare events, and no matter what you can come up with to prevent it, the shooter will have a workaround,” Fox said, adding that over the past 35 years, there have been only five cases in which someone ages 18 to 20 used an assault rifle in a mass shooting. this seems weak. if shootings are rare events s…
The thesis is that, because these events are so rare, the cost of prevention outweighs the benefit. Yes, it sounds cold, but human life has a certain value, and just like any rational decision, we have to consider in some objective manner whether conceivable preventative measures are worthwhile. >just because assault rifles were rarely used in past 35 years in what way does that influence a future projection Do you n…