this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
157 points (91.5% liked)

News

35692 readers
3065 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Many Americans think of school shootings as mass casualty events involving an adolescent with an assault-style weapon. But a new study says that most recent school shootings orchestrated by teenagers do not fit that image — and they are often related to community violence.

The study, published Monday in the journal JAMA Pediatrics, analyzed 253 school shootings carried out by 262 adolescents in the US between 1990 and 2016.

It found that these adolescents were responsible for only a handful of mass casualty shootings, defined as those involving four or more gunshot fatalities. About half of the shootings analyzed — 119 — involved at least one death. Among the events, seven killed four or more people.

A majority of the shootings analyzed also involved handguns rather than assault rifles or shotguns, and they were often the result of “interpersonal disputes,” according to the researchers from University of South Carolina and University of Florida.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So it's clear that the firearms by themselves do not cause the crime, but are only the tools used.

Except for all the murders you just acknowledged were lower with gun control, because guns escalate arguments and crimes into homicides since there's no better tool for quickly and reliably killing someone.

What you're trying to do is "cure" pneumonia with a cough suppressant, and hoping that the underlying pneumonia goes away on it's own once you stop coughing

I sure hope you're not a doctor, because treating symptoms is exactly what they do until the underlying cause is discovered and addressed. If it can't be cured, managing symptoms is literally their entire focus.

Not in your hospital though. Turn up with a broken arm? "Sorry, pain is just a symptom so we can't give you anything for it. We also don't think the bone sticking out of your arm is the actual cause, so we're not going to address it until you've had 6 months of chemotherapy and undergone a colectomy because cancer can cause pain too. We're not actually going to perform those proceedures, but if someone else does, come back and see us so we can give you new excuses".

Even if you took all the guns in the US, you're not going to fix the violence, the gangs, the domestic abuse, the rape, or even the suicides.

No, it wont. It will reduce the lethality and frequency of every single one of those things instead -- an improvement you oppose.

And yeah, conservatives oppose fixing all that shit too. So, good on you for agreeing with Republicans on that, I guess?

You seem to be confused again. Name every single moral, effective change you can think of to reduce violence and crime and I'll openly support every one of them. Universal healthcare, addressing wealth inequality, improving education? No problem. You can even raise my taxes to help fund them.

Then when you're all out of ideas, I will say "Gun control is another moral, effective way to reduce the amount and severity of crime and violence" and you'll throw a fit about "not that one, we will kill you if you try and implement that one".

Your views on that one issue align perfectly with both Republicans and the gun-lobby that donates $16 million each year to them -- money you give them.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I sure hope you’re not a doctor, because treating symptoms is exactly what they do until the underlying cause is discovered and addressed.

Yeah, and you know the underlying cause, and are still advocating for treating only a symptom. A tool doesn't cause people to use the tool. An inanimate object can not force people to use it; it has no power to compel action . But you insist on treating it as though it does. You insist on treating symptoms as though they were causes, while ignoring the cause entirely.

I'm tired of this. You want to take rights and insist that only the state has the power to use violence. Ultimately, you want to empower fascists rather than the people as a whole.

I'm done, because there's literally no point at which you're going to admit that a tool can't force it's own use.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I'm done, because there's literally no point at which you're going to admit that a tool can't force it's own use

A tool can't force it's own use. I'm happy to admit it and have never claimed otherwise.

But you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with a gun control advocate that lives in your head and believes whatever the gun-lobby has told you they believe.