CNN.com: (Opinion) Why We Don't Give a [darn] About Mass Shootings

[Fergasun]

CNN.com: (Opinion) Why We Don't Give a [darn] About Mass Shootings

Quote

One month ago, the worst mass shooting in US history took place at a country music concert in Las Vegas. Fifty-eight people were killed and more than 500 people injured. Bill O'Reilly boiled the massacre down to six words: "This is the price of freedom."  I hate to say it, but he is right. Sunday, just 34 days after Vegas, 26 people were gunned down and about 20 others were wounded during a church service in Texas. And here's what is really sick -- we won't be surprised when there's another mass shooting next month. Maybe it'll be your church, your mall, your concert or your movie theater. That's the price of freedom.

Quote

In America, we are free to stockpile weapons. We are free to order ammo online. We are free to outfit our guns with bump stocks, like the Vegas shooter did. This is the price we pay for freedom, alright. The freedom to not give a [darn].

...

Quote

After World War II, the famous Cambridge psychologist J.T. MacCurdy studied an interesting phenomenon about the bombings in London in 1940 and 1941. He found that people affected by the bombings fell into three categories: those who died, those who were a "near miss" (who closely witnessed the horror of the bombings but lived), and those who had a "remote miss" (people who may have heard the sirens, but were removed from the direct scene of the bombing).

Quote

Here's what's interesting. MacCurdy found the people who witnessed a "near miss" were deeply affected by the bombing -- while the "remote miss" group felt invincible and even excited.

...

Quote

This is a moon shot approach, and it's worked for us before. In 1962, when JFK spoke at Rice University, he announced his goal of landing an astronaut on the moon and his confidence in doing so.  Kennedy didn't have his full plan yet. He didn't know exactly how a man would land on the moon. But he did know what he wanted to outcome to look like. He didn't ask Congress to solve it; he challenged our nation to do it.

 

Quote

Imagine if we said that by 2025 we wanted to be nation that led the world in having the least number of mass shootings.Based on how divided we are and how many tragic shootings happen in this country, this vision may seem as difficult as landing a man on the moon.

Lot's of interesting stuff in this article -- I completely agree that this approach is a reasonable one to take from the standpoint of public policy.  Note -- I don't think she gives a "less guns" or "more guns" solution.  

[Springfield]

Take away all the guns, that’s how you solve it.

 

I don’t care for any of the other bull****.  Until all the guns are gone, mass shootings will be commonplace.  Since taking away guns won’t happen, I’m done talking about gun control and done caring about people who get shot up.

 

How much is Kevlar these days?

[Larry]

Now, I have to say, I want for things like Las Vegas to be possible.  

 

My reasoning is this:  Picture yourself a country in which Las Vegas is impossible.  (Not rare.  Not difficult.  Impossible.)  And then ask yourself if you want to live in that country.  

 

I do think that when we're formulating our laws, that we need to place a value on freedom, too.  

 

(This does not at all mean that I don't think the NRA has moved the balance way too far.)  

[zoony]

11 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Take away all the guns, that’s how you solve it.

 

I don’t care for any of the other bull****.  Until all the guns are gone, mass shootings will be commonplace.  Since taking away guns won’t happen, I’m done talking about gun control and done caring about people who get shot up.

 

How much is Kevlar these days?

 

If safety is your main goal, a far more effective solution would be for the government to censor media coverage of the shootings.   No reporting on them and they go away.

 

Take away guns and you still have trucks jumping sidewalks and fertilizer bombs and propane trucks.

 

No, the real solution is state run media.  Not even up for debate, if your goal is safety

[Springfield]

5 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

If safety is your main goal, a far more effective solution would be for the government to censor media coverage of the shootings.   No reporting on them and they go away.

 

Take away guns and you still have trucks jumping sidewalks and fertilizer bombs and propane trucks.

 

No, the real solution is state run media.  Not even up for debate, if your goal is safety

 

Good point.  Censor the media AND take away the guns.

 

Of course we are doing a pretty good job of tuning out the media as it is.  Not much on the California school shooting.  Hell, Donald Trump couldn’t even get his “thoughts and prayers” Post right.

 

 

****, that’s what we need!  ****ing Thoughts and Prayers!  That’ll save us all.

[zoony]

Just now, Springfield said:

 

Good point.  Censor the media AND take away the guns.

 

Of course we are doing a pretty good job of tuning out the media as it is.  Not much on the California school shooting.  Hell, Donald Trump couldn’t even get his “thoughts and prayers” Post right.

 

 

****, that’s what we need!  ****ing Thoughts and Prayers!  That’ll save us all.

 

All of these shooters want to wreak havoc and get their name  in lights

 

There have been a few shootings where the media has refused to release the identity of the shooter.  It is a highly effective strategy.  Woyld be even more effective with full blown government censorship to keep us safe.

[Springfield]

In all seriousness, I do agree that keeping the details of the shooter private is a good thing.

 

Of course, in reality, I’m just as against government censorship as I am government removal of weapons.

 

And this is why nothing happens and we just let these shootings pile up.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Campaign finance reform would be the first step.

[Hersh]

50 minutes ago, Larry said:

Now, I have to say, I want for things like Las Vegas to be possible.  

 

My reasoning is this:  Picture yourself a country in which Las Vegas is impossible.  (Not rare.  Not difficult.  Impossible.)  And then ask yourself if you want to live in that country.  

 

I do think that when we're formulating our laws, that we need to place a value on freedom, too.  

 

(This does not at all mean that I don't think the NRA has moved the balance way too far.)  

 

While I essentially get what you actually mean, I think there are probably better ways to say it. Is there actually a country that exists in which what happened in Vegas is not possible in said country?

[abdcskins]

We don't give a darn about mass shootings because they will never stop and nothing is being done to prevent them. Politicans don't care. I agree with Springfield, the only way to prevent them is to get rid of guns. Since that clearly isn't possible in this country, then we need to at the very least curtail what types of guns are available. I think starting by not allowing citizens to own assault rifles would be a good start. Compromise. Do people even compromise anymore? One of the main reasons I despise politics. 

 

And yes Larry, I would like to live in a country where Las Vegas is impossible. Why would you want a citizen being able to gun down hundreds of people to be possible? I realize your point was to emphasize people's freedom vs. the government (I think) but your example was bad. You are a good poster just saying that didn't make much sense.

 

Oh and finally I think another reason people don't care about mass shootings is because they think it will never happen to them. It's human nature to tune out things that don't affect them. More of a practical and cynical reason but I think it is true.

 

 

[Burgold]

I disagree with the premise. I think people do care. Sadly, I also think we are being desensitized. The NRA is winning the fight to make people think this is normal and inevitable.

 

It isn't.

 

It isn't normal and inevitable in any other country in the world. Americans aren't biologically, genetically, or otherwise different from every other group of humans. Therefore, our behavior shouldn't be radically different. What's possible there should be possible here. More importantly, slide the calendar back thirty years and these mass shootings almost never took place here in America either. Maybe you'd get something horrific once a decade. It's not that the media didn't cover these things years and years ago. It's that they didn't happen. Now, they do. They happen all the time. They happen so frequently that people think nothing can be done. And they think nothing can be done for one very good reason.

 

We do nothing.

 

The only thing we've attempted to do to halt mass shootings is make it easier to buy guns. We've made it easier for people with violent mental illness to purchase firearms. We've made it easier to buy every type of weapon. We've made it easier to buy as many weapons as you want. Peter used to show studies that show that gun control was effective in curbing gun violence right here in America to curb gun violence. It can be done. The reason it's not working today is because we have not only not acted to make gun violence harder to commit, but that we have soldiered to make it as easy as possible. Bad legislation. Poor court decisions. Politicians kneeling before the altar of NRA money and fearmongering.

 

Do we care? We damn well better. Have mass shootings become so normalized that we are no longer shocked? Damn straight.

 

And that's the difference. There is a difference between not giving a darn and no longer being shocked. It's past time to try something. We've tried nothing for too long and seen no results.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I give up.

As someone here said, any idea that we could get this under control died in those classrooms in Sandy Hook Elementary. If we were not so collectively outraged by Sandy Hook to actually do something then what would do it? 500 wounded, 56 dead...nope didn’t even register on the possibility meter of getting things done. I posted an article in the gun control thread that was all but wholly ignored, it demonstrated quite clearly that the single difference between the US and the rest of world was that the proliferation of guns in the US was exponentially higher than in other nations and cooresponded to the number of shootings. It doesn’t take a ****ing rocket surgeon to figure out that more guns equals more gun deaths and more mass shootings. Only gun cultists deny it.

 

As for putting the blame on the media...BS. The media does what it’s always done, if it bleeds it leads. 

 

If you want to lower gun deaths and mass murders in this country then the number of guns has to be reduced. That’s it. If you’re not willing to do that then sit down and shut up buttercup. We’ll just wait for our turn to send our “thoughts and prayers” when it’s your family’s loss.

[Llevron]

Silencing the media is probably the dumbest solution to this I have ever read. You dont think you will see cell phone videos on Social Media claiming that 'The government doesn't want you to know this happened!!' 

 

Or worse yet that the killer themselves would post or live stream their own videos?

 

The most effective way to solve a problem has always been to hide it and pretend it doesn't exist. Sure. 

[Bang]

Seems to me the best way is for some of these bullets to hit certain people in the head.

Wayne LaPierre would be a good start.

 

 

There is no solution. Too many people get a hard on thinking about their guns and how awesomely awesome it makes them feel, and for all their bravado are the most fearful of us all.

You can't reason with that. And with no reason, there is no hope of a solution.

Large scale violence will be the only solution that these people understand.

 

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 minute ago, Bang said:

Seems to me the best way is for some of these bullets to hit certain people in the head.

Wayne LaPierre would be a good start.

 

~Bang

Anyerisms dammit, you can’t go around suggesting homicide! However, death by batural causes...??

[Bang]

4 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Anyerisms dammit, you can’t go around suggesting homicide! However, death by batural causes...??

Homicide? Perish the thought. He could accidentally pull the trigger while deepthroating his rifle.
 

This whole country is a bar fight. 

Meaning, jack****s not in their right minds are driving everyone to the worst, and if you've ever been in a bar fight,, typically there is no reasoning out of it. it's gonna happen whether you like it or not. And right now, the dumbest and angriest of us are armed and being driven to hate their fellow Americans. The NRAs ads lately have been saying everything BUT "go kill a liberal".

And eventually, they will.

 

~Bang

[TradeTheBeal!]

33 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Silencing the media is probably the dumbest solution to this I have ever read. You dont think you will see cell phone videos on Social Media claiming that 'The government doesn't want you to know this happened!!' 

 

Or worse yet that the killer themselves would post or live stream their own videos?

 

The most effective way to solve a problem has always been to hide it and pretend it doesn't exist. Sure. 

 

He was trolling.

[Llevron]

1 minute ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

He was trolling.

 

Quite effectively lol

[steve09ru]

10 hours ago, Springfield said:

Take away all the guns, that’s how you solve it.

 

I don’t care for any of the other bull****.  Until all the guns are gone, mass shootings will be commonplace.  Since taking away guns won’t happen, I’m done talking about gun control and done caring about people who get shot up.

 

How much is Kevlar these days?

people keep saying this as if it's just that simple but the question is how?  How do you take all of the guns?  It's next to impossible and that is where the issue lies.  Doesn't matter what laws we have in place (and yes we do need stricter control), the guns will be there for those who want them.  I get it can't happen just like that but what would we consider a success?  50 years?  100 years? 

[TradeTheBeal!]

8 minutes ago, steve09ru said:

people keep saying this as if it's just that simple but the question is how?  How do you take all of the guns?  It's next to impossible and that is where the issue lies.  Doesn't matter what laws we have in place (and yes we do need stricter control), the guns will be there for those who want them.  I get it can't happen just like that but what would we consider a success?  50 years?  100 years? 

 

It took 40/50 years to get here.  Might take 40/50 to get back.

[AsburySkinsFan]

24 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

It took 40/50 years to get here.  Might take 40/50 to get back.

Exactly, it has been a steady drip campaign waged by a very rich industry that thrives on fear.

[Springfield]

37 minutes ago, steve09ru said:

people keep saying this as if it's just that simple but the question is how?  How do you take all of the guns?  It's next to impossible and that is where the issue lies.  Doesn't matter what laws we have in place (and yes we do need stricter control), the guns will be there for those who want them.  I get it can't happen just like that but what would we consider a success?  50 years?  100 years? 

 

Its not simple and I don’t even think it’s reasonable.  I just think that’s the only way you stop the mass murders.

 

Its also why I’m dont caring and just consider myself and my family lucky at this point.  I’ll start caring if it hits home, I guess.

[LadySkinsFan]

The topic's answer is simple. 

 

Every time there's a mass shooting, there are calls for Congress to do something. And Congress does nothing. So this is now the expected response, nothing will be done.

 

What's missing is: if people care about this issue, then elect people to Congress that will do something. 

[Destino]

I'm entirely too cynical when it comes to politics sometimes, and this might be one of those times, but part of me suspects the major parties value wedge issues like this more than attempting to resolve them.  Trying to actually change things is risky politically.  I get suspicious when I don't see detailed solutions being proposed and a movement towards consensus.  Look at health care for instance.  Republicans campaigned on Obamacare being the devil itself, but when it came time to fix this great evil... nothing.  The divisiveness of the issue was politically valuable, clearly.  They all made use of it.  When time came to actually do something about it, they couldn't agree on anything.  There is risk in tying their names to actual policy. 

 

It would be easy for democrats to rally around specific points relating to gun control.  Things like (and these are just examples) hard limits on ammo capacity.  Banning any and all modifications that increase the rate of fire beyond one bullet per human trigger pull, which would cover bump stocks and any other tricks out there.  Improved and universal background checks.  Real well understood goals are always more likely to come into being than nebulous philosophizing.  After all, how do you engage in a persuasive conversation with a political opponent if you can't even define exactly what it is you want them to agree with? 

 

I could be entirely wrong, not exactly a rare occurrence, but I'll believe that our leaders are serious about this issue when they start to come together on what change actually looks like.  Until then this issue looks a lot like the promises made to minority communities lately.  A lot of talk, a lot of anger, but little substance and even less actual changes.

 

[Burgold]

1 hour ago, steve09ru said:

people keep saying this as if it's just that simple but the question is how?  How do you take all of the guns?  It's next to impossible and that is where the issue lies.  Doesn't matter what laws we have in place (and yes we do need stricter control), the guns will be there for those who want them.  I get it can't happen just like that but what would we consider a success?  50 years?  100 years? 

It's really pretty simple. You go to the ACME company and order one of their super duper electro magnets, attach it to a SHIELD Hellicarrier, then fly it over every neighborhood in the US where it will suck up every single damn firearm.

 

Credit for this idea goes to Wile E. Coyote. It's a good idea too. After all, he's a super genius.

 

 

(More seriously, the answer isn't to take all the guns. Just like the answer to the US deficit isn't erasing it in one move. The answer is incremental. It involves many steps from prevention to culture change to education to better safety standards to firearm removal. It's a bloody complex puzzle. Even then, the goal isn't to reduce homicides to absolute zero, but to make them tougher to commit. To give reasonable persons pause before acting and to give unreasonable pause so that the authorities can be alerted to them and catch up with them.)