WTF? 323?! THREEHUNDREDTWENTYTHREE!!! I just want to cry.
via Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast
via Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast
List of mass shootings in the United States in 2018 - Wikipedia
5 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 17 previous comments
- You should stop sharing it because it’s false. We love our freedom. That’s why we use and own firearms.1w
- I leave this open to debate1w
- My apologies,, to drift in, but a friend tapped me when this floated by her stream.
Let's start with
1) , this isn't about you, so don't make it personal;
2) To set the context, I'm not "anti-gun," I'm "anti-insanity," and a useful mantra is therefore: "Own a firearm, I don't care. Just don't be an asshole about it."
The problem in the US, though, is that the "passion" for "freedom" and gun ownership has crossed the line into sheer madness.
The link shared is not, in fact, "false." False requires the facts to be wrong, which they aren't, and the premise is a persuasive argument that Americans love their guns more than their children, which she makes a compelling argument for, given that every time school children are mass-murdered by gun-toting lunatics, the response is "More guns! More guns!" which is exactly as stupid as shouting "Throw gasoline on that fire!"
In the vein of "madness," I'll point out that it is nearly impossible to get any kind of legislation passed limiting the number of firearms in the US, or if unhealthy people should be allowed to own them, because every time something is suggested - for example, that concerned family members can petition a judge to confiscate firearms from people diagnosed with mental illness, and the judge has to review the request, and approve it, before anything can be done about taking guns away from the mentally ill person (California) - are painted as "gummint wants to take guns from veterans" - which is total misrepresentation, fear-mongering, and adds to the insanity of gun owners calling in death threats to anyone who speaks out against loose firearm laws. (It happens.)
That's not "freedom loving" - it's madness.
"Freedom loving" would be gun owners stepping up to say "You know what? One of the reasons I own a gun is because I want to be able to shoot back. Why the fuck are there so many guns out there that I have to be afraid of them in the first place? Why the fuck are lunatics allowed to buy guns?"
Instead, the shouting is always "More guns! More guns!" As if, "more guns" somehow makes things better? That's like saying "The best way to cure illegal drug addiction is more illegal drugs!" or "The solution to being fat is to eat more!"
Instead, the question needs to be "Why the fuck are there so many guns out there, and how do we stop insane people from having guns? How to we stop children being mass-murdered by guns? How do we stop nightclub or movie theater massacres with guns?" (Note, that in many of those "mass shootings," there were people among the victims with guns, and those guns didn't mean jack shit, so let's be clear that "more guns" is not solving any problems, but it is resulting in more gun deaths.)
Why do politicians and public figures get death threats when they suggest "less guns means less gun deaths," but no one is receiving death threats for dumping more guns onto the streets?
So, my message to gun owners is: "Clean up your own damn house, people, and you won't have to deal with outsiders having to clean up after you."1w
- Deciding CNN is "unreliable" because of the term "assault weapons" appears on their site is pretty weak evidence of "reliability," given that CNN's mandate covers pretty much everything that happens anywhere. That would be a bit like me saying "The confuse D&D with V&V, therefore they're 'unreliable'."1w
- I appreciate your passion for the Second Amendment but it's clear from your response "And what sources are they?" that you didn't bother to actually look at the Wikipedia article. The definitions of mass shootings are clearly listed but they were: Mass Shooting Tracker, Gun Violence Archive, Vox, USA Today, Mother Jones, and The Washington Post.
Only Mother Jones used a 3+ shot and even then, they are "excluding the perpetrator(s), at a public place, excluding gang-related killings."
So your initial comment is false. In addition "The FBI defines mass murder as murdering four or more persons during an event with no "cooling-off period" between the murders." (source: https://bit.ly/2VDyFWx) Again, this makes your statement of FBI classifying mass shootings as 2-4 or more victims false.
Nothing you have said refutes the Wikipedia article that there were 323 mass shootings in the USA in 2018.
The CIA is not allowed to operate on US soil so your mention of the CIA is not relevant.
The CDC gets no funding to study gun violence. Again, they are not relevant to the discussion at hand.
You can't strengthen your points by including non-relevant information. Someone is eventually going to find out, then you will lose credibility. If you're going to participate in public debate, it's important to gather relevant information, vetting your sources, and make a case for your position based on the facts.1w
- That would be the GOP that killed funding to study gun violence in the US. 600,000 dead US residents later, the CDC - tasked with keepong Americans safe from preventable forms of death - is not allowed to study what killed half-a-million people. Priorities fucked up much here in the US?
“They were saying if you want to keep your family safe, if you are a real man, you will have a gun at home,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “Bringing the gun not only didn’t protect you, it put you at much, much greater risk.”
To this day, gun rights advocates dispute the study’s findings. The N.R.A. pushed Congress in 1995 to stop the C.D.C. from spending taxpayer money on research that advocated gun control. Congress then passed the Dickey Amendment in 1996, and cut funding that effectively ended the C.D.C.’s study of gun violence as a public health issue.
And yes, in 1996, the GOP controlled the US Congress, so they own those 600,000 deaths.
Add a comment...