Gun Violence Thread

I disagree. People were not shamed to the degree they are now. The anonymity of sitting behind a keyboard and unloading on someone didn't exist before. If you shamed someone...you took a chance on getting punched in the face.

There have been many studies on the damage Facebook has on people because it creates a narcissistic society with a warped sense of reality. "Betty" looks at her life and sees all her problems, then goes to Facebook where people only post their happy moments and she starts to believe her "horrible" life is worthless while everyone else has all their s*** together. It's not nostalgia. It's just fact. Families don't eat at the dinner table near as often or as a family. There are too many other distractions out there. People can sit in the same room and be together, but they are in different little worlds. Do you know how often I walk by a group people (teenagers, college kids, adults, any age really) that are sitting in public together at the same table, but all of them are on their own phone as if they are by themselves in a dark little room? I'm at a restaurant and the parents are talking, but all their kids are on phones or tablets just so they will be quiet. Being in the same room with someone is far different than being social with someone. That didn't use to happen.

The Orlando shooter seems to have gotten most of his influence from faceless people on the web. Do you really think a man living in America could have become that radicalized had he not had access to these types of people or teachings? Same with the average crazy white guy who is filled with hate. The internet absolutely fuels the fire. Heck, I'm not in danger of going koo-koo, but I will admit that I get really ticked off reading things on the internet, getting in discussions on the internet where I can only read someone's words as opposed to having an actual face to face interaction to truly gauge the full meaning in their words. Do you get in name calling flame wars with people over a movie or something if you are talking to that person face to face over a beer? No. But it happens when you're on a message board drinking Mountain Dew and a***layer666 tells you Star Wars is "for queers" or some stupid crap like that.

And I'm not banging on tech.I like tech. But there is zero doubt that it has isolated all of us from each other in a way that is obviously hurting us all. The internet and technology is amazing and can be used for great things like Lakersball or playing games with friends or keeping up with distant family members. But no one uses all this tech just for that. People always end up stumbling onto 4chan or some crap like that.

 

So in light of the current mood and after a little time to sort of gather and reflect here's my stance on the current gun debate:

1) Let's start here: Banning guns will not happen in the US. It's a non-starter. Too many guns, too many people with guns, it'd be like trying to ban cars.

2) I am all for more stringent purchasing limitations. You want to raise the legal age? Fine. I have no problem with that. More in-depth background checks? Absolutely. Pass a psych eval? Sure. I'm up for that. There's no reason why such a powerful weapon should be so easy to obtain, it's what leads to people being irresponsible owners. Having a gun comes with weight and responsibility and there should be a sense of responsibility and burden there. Anyone who can just go get a gun easily should not be able to do that.

3) AR doesn't stand for Automatic Rifle, it stands for Assault Rifle. An Assault Rifle, by manufacturer design, is not an automatic weapon. It is for all intents and purposes, a larger and more powerful semi-automatic pistol. I just wanted to point this out because I hear a lot of uninformed opinions on this, even from people who are gun owners! Let's keep this in mind that there is a distinction. I believe there is no reason to have an automatic weapon as a civilian. An automatic weapon is a weapon only useful to kill someone who is trying to kill you. It is not a useful hunting tool, it is not a useful home defense weapon, it's an impractical recreation weapon.

4) I do not believe ARs should be banned. I know there are single action hunting rifles out there, but an AR is still a relatively useful hunting weapon and over the last 20 years many people have been hunting with them. I am okay if you want to make this a very difficult weapon to buy, that's fine with me. Again, that's not my concern. A qualified person should be the only one capable of purchasing and carrying a firearm.

5) Arming the teachers is a cheap measure. People don't go into teaching in order to shoot firearms, keeping firearms near children isn't necessarily the best idea in that setting, and introducing more overt guns into that arena is probably not a good idea. If a teacher wants to be armed, I believe strongly in a carrier's permit being available to any citizen that can pass stringent psychological exams and proves competent. If a teacher feels safer carrying, then they should have that option given the amount of times schools are shot these days. But as a requirement or something? Why? If anything, hire more veterans to defend schools. It could be an easy way for them to make money for a population that we're not servicing enough.

6) Just a final thought, I'm a gun owner and I was shocked at how easy it was to buy a handgun. I've heard it's easier to buy rifles. I was not required to prove my competency. I was not required to the ins and outs of the gun. I didn't have to pass a competency exam for firing the gun (like a driver's test). I don't think that's right. I think if you're going to put something this powerful out into the world, you should prove your competency both mentally and physically. I also believe more people should be introduced to guns at a young age by responsible people so that they can understand the gravity of what that weapon means and how to take it seriously.

7) That kid needed help a long time ago. He was on the FBI watch list already. This was a massive failure by the institutions meant to protect us. This isn't a justification for guns at all, just a statement of fact. How do you let that kid buy a gun? If you're being watched by the effing FBI (who said they couldn't find him... did they check his house?), how can you buy a gun? That makes no sense to me.

 

2 words: molon Labe.

We're past the point of no return in regards to guns.

 

I think it might be Cañada that does this, but why don’t we make it illegal to air the name of anyone that does a shooting? Yes their names will get out by someone online eventually, but take it off of the big news outlets, and make it so people know they will not get famous for being the newest murdering psychopath.

That might help and I don’t understand why we haven’t done so already.

 

I think social media is as much to blame for the recent uptick in shootings than anything else. There have been so many studies linking stress, anxiety and depression to social media for obvious reasons. When I talk to the people at my company that are in their early 20's, they are all so much more stressed than I was at that age. Unfortunately that horse is out of the barn as well. As horrible as it is to say, I'm not sure there is anything we can do as a country to make these types of events less likely without becoming a strict, borderline dictatorship. I think there are steps we need to take to keep these events from increasing, but we aren't going to eliminate these things.

 

This is an excellent point.

 

There are far more stressful social medias than Twitter, including Facebook and Instagram and Snapchat and all the new things.

The only stressful part of Twitter is the distressing number of stupid people.