The media frenzy makes this look like some kind of out-of-control epidemic, but that's just not the case.
This does not mean we should do nothing about them...any shooting is an event that should not happen. But it's important to realize this fact because too many people are approaching the topic emotionally rather than rationally and proposing extreme reactions to trends that simply aren't as extreme as they perceive them to be.
If you disagree, ask yourself why there are so many cases of shootings in the news all of a sudden. While some recent shootings have indeed been tail-event massacres (i.e., unusually major), many have been events that would otherwise not have attracted much attention (that psycho teacher who shot himself in a closet a few weeks ago comes to mind...why the heck was that on national news?).
[0] https://mises.org/wire/there-are-fewer-school-shootings-now-...
This is not supported by other analyses that look at the issue. FiveThirtyEight looked at several measures of school shootings / mass shootings and came to the opposite conclusion. [0]
[0] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/no-matter-how-you-measu...
I won't attempt to debate any of the points made in your article, as I'm not authority on the subject myself, but thanks for linking it.
However, you might find this article written by a former member of the FiveThirtyEight team interesting:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-...
If you check CDC data through 2016 (https://wonder.cdc.gov), the non-suicide firearm-related death rate is effectively flat for the date range they have data for, varying at most by about 0.1%.
His statement is absolutely correct. Your link shows that the number of school shootings is going up. Note that school shootings make up a small portion of all shootings. All shooting crimes are going down.
That's exactly the case. Just because numbers are going down doesn't make it any less of an epidemic.
"people are approaching the topic emotionally rather than rationally and proposing extreme reactions"
Suggesting people don't own assault rifles is not an "extreme reaction".
'Epidemic' is usually used to refer to the rate of spread of something. This sort of hyperbole is exactly why it's hard to have honest or productive discussions about this topic.
> Suggesting people don't own assault rifles is not an "extreme reaction".
I would assert that it depends on whether or not you feel altering (or violating) the Bill of Rights is an "extreme reaction". Getting the USA constitution modified takes a lot of effort and is a big deal.
Second, the reason effective conversations can’t be had on gun control is because of how emotional and out of touch the anti-gun crowd gets. A lot of this is due to activists and the media riling people up.
Gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility, and many do support sensible gun control laws. The problem is, as soon as someone stands up and says “Oh hey here’s an idea why don’t we just ban all guns lol!!” then you know the conversation is over, and after that point it’s just a downward spiral.
Nothing can be done unless people start taking a rational, sober approach to these issues. Not with tear-fueled rage.
The people you are arguing with didn’t shoot and kill your family, in fact quite the opposite, if they had the chance they would probably jump at the opportunity of saving them with a firearm. You could argue whether or not they’d be effective, but it’s the thought that counts.
It kind of reminds me of the late 90's and early 2000's when all of a sudden kids getting abducted became huge news. That forever changed the way adults could interact with strange kids, and how parents viewed unknown adults.
I cannot speak to your other proposals, as I would be adding additional speculation to something borne of tragedy that cannot be denied, regardless of specifics.
Mass shootings in the US: there have been 1,624 in 1,870 days
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/oct/...
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_S...
Wikipedia (sourced from CNN): "90 mass shootings between 1966 and 2012"
They both use the same definition of mass shooting (four or more victims) so how is there an order of magnitude difference between their numbers? Ah, I see. CNN excluded gang violence in their numbers, and the Guardian included it. Seems like they may have a few biases of their own.
https://mises.org/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/publ...
Any rationale behind media sensationalize shootings? Just purely for the stun/shock factor? or perhaps borderline propaganda towards certain agenda?
- Zero shootings - Too many shootings
Any number bigger than zero is too much and we should do our best as a society to decrease it to zero.
Pick a random person on the street and they'll probably tell you the number of shootings in the USA is going up, not down.
As I said, action should be taken. But if people are misinformed, the correct action cannot be taken.
- domestic violence that results in homicide - homicides in prison - automobile related deaths - drug overdoses - suicides
I think most people would agree that life is precious and should be preserved. I'm not sure most people would agree that we could get any of the above statistics to zero.
- Benjamin Franklin
Probably not a good policy, even so.
What about deaths from car accidents?
What about deaths from hammer?
Choking on your toothbrush?
Jaywalking?
Infections resulting from not washing hands?
Carbon monoxide?
Your absolutism is dishonest and unhelpful.
This has the added benefit of not stigmatizing their family, who likely have little to do with the event.
As an aside, I also think any killers of this kind should have their wishes for burial null and void with their brains and bodies given immediately to scientific research.
This CAN NOT be said enough. Blasting a name and attention (fame) leads to copycats.
Skating would be pretty easy if the streets were not in an awful state.
The media takes the advice to always mention suicide help lines when reporting on suicide. But they never take the advice to cover shooting news locally, without detail on the shooters identity and without hysterics.
(Pardon the phone screenshot)
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_General_Hospital
Also I wonder why some of the rooms are given names on the map such as "space invader" and "residence evil" but not the other ones.
