Full article in the link:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/15/us/mass-shootings-what-changed-trnd/index.html
Fix your shit.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
CNN: 19 of the 30 deadliest mass shootings have taken place in the last decade. What has changed?
- Thread starter Keasar
- Start date
Full article in the link:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/15/us/mass-shootings-what-changed-trnd/index.html
Gun laws are a joke. Our system for the mentally ill is a joke.
Too many Americans also love guns more than their kids/family/friends/neighbors to top it off. They know there will be a school shooting in the next week. They know another Las Vegas is around the corner. They just don't give a shit.
Too many Americans also love guns more than their kids/family/friends/neighbors to top it off. They know there will be a school shooting in the next week. They know another Las Vegas is around the corner. They just don't give a shit.
I'm going to guess that the ease of internet access is not helping either. It's easy for these mass murderers to look for information, training or solutions for their plans by just browsing websites. Although i guess internet has we know it has been there for almost 20 years, so maybe I'm speaking nonsense...
I imagine this has something to do with it.
In the U.S. you can get an AR-15 for like 700 dollars but an AR-15 in Europe/Denmark at least is 2000 dollars and upwards - not to mention you have to pay for license and storage too.
Yes but it was not really a "ban" as much as it was restriction on mostly cosmetic features.
The gun would've just looked like that instead if the "ban" was still in place. Still a weapon capable of the same level of destruction.
Yes but it was not really a "ban" as much as it was restriction on mostly cosmetic features.
The gun would've just looked like that instead if the "ban" was still in place. Still a weapon capable of the same level of destruction.
So that was joke of an ban, shame.
The diary of a would be killer (recently turned in by his grandma) would seem to confirm this.
At least some of the killers want the infamy.
It's because God isn't allowed in schools if you were to believe all my friends relinking scripture in Facebook repeatedly apparently.
It is amazing how people use tragedy to push their agenda and try to ignore the gun angle.
In the grand scheme of things it makes sense. The vast vast majority of gun homicides are committed with handguns, rifles account for very small amount of deaths.
unfortunately infamy has been a part of crime for a very long time
No, but how news outlets tie into social media has. Even if killers aren't watching TV this information is front and center in your face online. I feel alotmore people are getting their mews, fake or not, online now.
but the motivation is exactly the same in most cases, the urge to be remembered for something
We've still got two more years to get those last eleven and I wouldn't be surprised at all if we do. It is a messed up state of affairs.
Imagine if they kept the option for using the game boy camera to put faces on characters in perfect dark.
Nintendo felt they had no choice except to remove it. I remember a lot of games making changes. Too bad we didn't change things that would have actually helped.
On a side note I was butt hurt since I wanted my likeness to be included in the multiplayer chaos.
Yeah and more so than ever the media and social media is feeding that need.
It's seems about as much as ever, unless I see some study otherwise.
In my memory alone I can think of killers from the 60s, 70s, and 80s who acted on similar impulses
The ban was fine when it was implemented but we never followed up to respond to gun makers skirting laws. That and it didn't give the ATF enough power to regulate gun manufacturing. To see how fucked up gun makers are, this is a "pistol"
That is actually true. I forgot we were talking about what has changed recently.
but the killers claiming to be inspired for fame from those sources are just as much as you would see in the past from those wanting to be in the paper, or on the national news
The problem is they'd have to ban semi automatic weapons entirely which is not gonna happen as long as the 2nd Amendment is around.
They had to try and ban cosmetic features because that was all they could do. And for obvious reasons it's not enough. Guns don't work like that, cosmetics don't decide if the gun is still functional, merely how practical and easy it is to use.
When you make arbitrary laws people will circumvent it.
Edit:
And here's an even more hilarious example of a "pistol" (legally speaking).
Social media is way more in your face than either of those things. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.
that's not really proof though, just saying 'it's in your face'
newspapers were in people's faces
TV was in peoples faces
The drawings line is that of those seeking infamy
that's kind of a random thought line
did Doom cause Columbine in that same reasoning?
So you're basically saying those seeking infamy are going to do so regardless? I'm curious as to what you think changed in the last 10 years to cause more mass shootings. You've basically sat here and swatted down people's theories. What are yours?
There's always been access to plenty of guns, especially those seeking infamy. I'm not buying this argument.
Is that really true though? Glocks have been around since the 80's and the Virginia Tech shooter was using a couple of those.
it's easier to buy than its ever been thanks to gun shows and their suppliers