There are other contributing factors, for sure, like the disintegrating social contract, the social media divide, and rise and lack of control over fake news, conspiracy theories, mis/disinformation, etc., and income inequality and the skyrocketing costs of living, both of which get short shrift in the public debate about mass shootings,…
There are other contributing factors, for sure, like the disintegrating social contract, the social media divide, and rise and lack of control over fake news, conspiracy theories, mis/disinformation, etc., and income inequality and the skyrocketing costs of living, both of which get short shrift in the public debate about mass shootings, and crime overall.
We know a lot more about public shooters than we did back when they really got started forty years ago (not including the U of TX sniper shooter 15 years prior, I consider that an outlier) and the earliest ones were most often motivated by workplace rage (the book Going Postal details this quite well). Now they're getting younger and crazier and the ability to assault people with repeating bullets guns (not getting into the terminology again or it will trigger someone's lengthy guns definitions). What we *do* know is they often broadcast their intentions and no one pays attention. And sometimes they do and the cops move in to nail someone with all the goods on him indicating he was, in fact, planning a mass attack.
No, I don't want to disarm the populace, and I don't believe the 'slippery slope' nonsense, or we would all have *no* rights* because the laws we need (against murder, crime, lying, driving while drunk, etc.) would have been used to strip us of everything.
The ones who are shrieking about a fascist nation and jack-booted thugs coming for their guns and terrified that libtards and n-words want to destroy their rights are the ones most worried about losing them if we had saner gun laws, while keeping the 2A intact.
In other words, anyone with a history of violence, esp domestic violence.
I saw that Onion article when it came out, and yeah, the bitter sarcasm is just as resonant today as it was eight years ago.
Since we *do* have gun laws in some places that are stricter than before, and the questions rise up in the wake of each shooting, "Why was this guy allowed to buy a gun? How did he slip through the cracks?" maybe we should pressure law enforcement to enforce laws they probably don't agree with, because they too support the 2A *a little too much* and also because cops have a huge problem with domestic violence (the subject of my last article). How about we start legally going after the people who aren't doing their jobs properly?
There are other contributing factors, for sure, like the disintegrating social contract, the social media divide, and rise and lack of control over fake news, conspiracy theories, mis/disinformation, etc., and income inequality and the skyrocketing costs of living, both of which get short shrift in the public debate about mass shootings, and crime overall.
We know a lot more about public shooters than we did back when they really got started forty years ago (not including the U of TX sniper shooter 15 years prior, I consider that an outlier) and the earliest ones were most often motivated by workplace rage (the book Going Postal details this quite well). Now they're getting younger and crazier and the ability to assault people with repeating bullets guns (not getting into the terminology again or it will trigger someone's lengthy guns definitions). What we *do* know is they often broadcast their intentions and no one pays attention. And sometimes they do and the cops move in to nail someone with all the goods on him indicating he was, in fact, planning a mass attack.
No, I don't want to disarm the populace, and I don't believe the 'slippery slope' nonsense, or we would all have *no* rights* because the laws we need (against murder, crime, lying, driving while drunk, etc.) would have been used to strip us of everything.
The ones who are shrieking about a fascist nation and jack-booted thugs coming for their guns and terrified that libtards and n-words want to destroy their rights are the ones most worried about losing them if we had saner gun laws, while keeping the 2A intact.
In other words, anyone with a history of violence, esp domestic violence.
I saw that Onion article when it came out, and yeah, the bitter sarcasm is just as resonant today as it was eight years ago.
Since we *do* have gun laws in some places that are stricter than before, and the questions rise up in the wake of each shooting, "Why was this guy allowed to buy a gun? How did he slip through the cracks?" maybe we should pressure law enforcement to enforce laws they probably don't agree with, because they too support the 2A *a little too much* and also because cops have a huge problem with domestic violence (the subject of my last article). How about we start legally going after the people who aren't doing their jobs properly?