School shootings began about 20 years ago, the same time the internet boom happened.
30 years ago there were orphans and abusive parents, bullies, guns & mental illness. The one thing there wasn’t? The internet. And school shootings. Coincidence?
School shootings began about 20 years ago, the same time the internet boom happened.
30 years ago there were orphans and abusive parents, bullies, guns & mental illness. The one thing there wasn’t? The internet. And school shootings. Coincidence?
Is it just me? wrote:
School shootings began about 20 years ago, the same time the internet boom happened.
30 years ago there were orphans and abusive parents, bullies, guns & mental illness. The one thing there wasn’t? The internet. And school shootings. Coincidence?
That makes sense, given that only in America we have the Internet. All around the world there's no Internet and no shootings. You might be on to something here.
Beanie babies reached peak popularity 20 years ago or so. Obviously thats what caused it.
Yes! You're right! Science and technology are killing us!
It's no coincidence that school shootings came with the internet or that suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation are correlated with investment in science and technology!
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/files/2015/09/chart-1024x404.jpeg
On another note, Nicholas Cage is 100% responsible for people who drown by falling into a pool!
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/files/2015/09/chart-copy-1024x404.jpeg
DietBacon wrote:
Yes! You're right! Science and technology are killing us!
It's no coincidence that school shootings came with the internet or that suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation are correlated with investment in science and technology!
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/files/2015/09/chart-1024x404.jpegOn another note, Nicholas Cage is 100% responsible for people who drown by falling into a pool!
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/files/2015/09/chart-copy-1024x404.jpeg
Hahahahajaha
People are laughing at you, but they shouldn't. School shootings are largely a social contagion, and the internet makes it far, far easier for social contagions to spread. The two losers at Columbine were responsible for far more deaths than those they killed that day. Anyone who doubts this doesn't know enough about suicide.
Honestly, considering the number of firearms already in the country spread among civilians, the best thing we could do to reduce the number of these things is a years long British style super-injunction against naming the shooter or any details of the shooter for any of these things in the media. While that might take an actual constitutional amendment, you can do your part by refusing to click or view any story that mentions them, reducing the demand for those stories. If these stories stop being $$$$ for media companies, who knows, maybe the reporters will grow a conscience.
This is serious? Don't you think not having access to guns would be better? As a Canadian, I'm totally freaked out by the American love of guns, the few times I've been there I always wonder who around me is packing. I assume most are.
The 'why can't we be like other countries' bit completely ignores the shear *number* of guns already in civilian hands, civilians who would not obey gun buyback mandates.
Could we have better gun control laws which would make a difference? Of course; mandatory background checks even in private sales would make a difference. But the 'have way, way fewer guns' possibility isn't.... possible. We'd be more likely to have a right-wing coup than a successful one of those.
CuriousPerson wrote:
the shear *number* of guns
I think the word you were looking for is sheer.
Balding Eagle wrote:
Is it just me? wrote:
School shootings began about 20 years ago, the same time the internet boom happened.
30 years ago there were orphans and abusive parents, bullies, guns & mental illness. The one thing there wasn’t? The internet. And school shootings. Coincidence?
That makes sense, given that only in America we have the Internet. All around the world there's no Internet and no shootings. You might be on to something here.
Guns have always been easy to get in America, so it can't have anything to do with guns.
My kids were on the internet as much as any teenager growing up. They're good adults now.
The difference? They were brought in a caring, loving home. At least a normal home. My (now ex) wife and I aren't on drugs, didn't overdrink, and paid attention to our kids- putting their interests above ours- and it wasn't a sacrifice.
Kent State?
Meh, there were mass shootings before the internet. After Columbine, they have seemed to be sensationalized in the media. It seems the Columbine shooters have paved the way for other social outcasts to have an outlet for their rage.
Let it Rupp wrote:
Meh, there were mass shootings before the internet. After Columbine, they have seemed to be sensationalized in the media. It seems the Columbine shooters have paved the way for other social outcasts to have an outlet for their rage.
Yes there were, but the frequency was way less. Do you see a link between media sensationalism and the internet?
If it were made illegal to carry a firearm (I'm not advocating for that), it would be accomplished over a number of years. There would be no coup, there would be no uptick in crime, and there would likely be less mass shootings after a bit of time. If, eventually, a person was going to spend a few years in jail for the mere act of carrying, the number of people carrying guns would be reduced to as near a zero point as you can get.
On the issue of mass shootings (not simply school shootings) the first issue is that it needs to be addressed. It is not being addressed...at all.....by either side. I'm not sure the collective grouping of nitwits in the process of running the country into the ground are the correct people to be making any decisions on our behalf but they aren't trying to fix the problem. This issue is multifaceted, involves at the very least some level of dealing with the mentally disturbed and access to weapons. Essentially, those who don't attempt to address the problem no matter which party they belong to, should be voted out. This is if WE are serious about the problem.
However, we are not. This country has earned this situation.
The fokus wrote:
If it were made illegal to carry a firearm (I'm not advocating for that), it would be accomplished over a number of years. There would be no coup, there would be no uptick in crime, and there would likely be less mass shootings after a bit of time. If, eventually, a person was going to spend a few years in jail for the mere act of carrying, the number of people carrying guns would be reduced to as near a zero point as you can get.
Uhhh.... no. Those who are already carrying guns illegally would just continue to carry guns illegally.
I would certainly agree that kids today are exposed to a ton more violence then when I was a kid in the 70s. My kids are in grade school. They have friends who are in first grade who play Call of Duty and watch Jurassic Park. I would have had nightmares for weeks if I did that when I was 6. But despite all this violent media and internet, the murder rate is about half what it was at its peak around 1980. Violent crime rates for juveniles peaked in the 90s and has steadily declined since then. Violence and crime in schools has been declining since 2000.
What has changed since the 70s is how guns are viewed in the US. Back in the 70s, guns were for hunting, target shooting and self defense. Up until the early 70s, the NRA was very supportive of gun control for fear that black militants would get a hold of guns and start an armed revolution in the ghettos. The NRA was running budget deficits and had very little money dedicated to funding candidates. By the 80s, the NRA became what it is today. Notably, gun control, which picked up momentum after the attempt on Pres. Reagan's life, was opposed less on the grounds of personal defense and more and more on the grounds of securing our "liberty" from an oppressive Federal government. After Waco/Koresh, the NRA and right wingers almost exclusively made opposing gun control about defending your liberty from government oppression. More recently, you can add preppers to that mix so that owning a gun is primarily about basically being a law unto yourself. "I think the constitution says X,Y,Z and if you do not agree, I have a gun and will protect the constitution." I think this gun culture is partly responsible for mass shootings. Guns represent power. Kids who feel like they have no power because they are ostracized or bullied see guns as there way to have power over those who oppress them.
Correlation does not mean causation. There is also 1.5 billion more people on the planet compared to 20 years ago... more people more issues.
The internet can be a bad thing, but I think it does more good than harm. There are several other countries with internet access and significantly less fatalities. There may be several people in Japan with internet addiction for example, but how many school shootings or shooting incidents does their country have annually? Virtually none.
sayer of uhhh.... no wrote:
Uhhh.... no. Those who are already carrying guns illegally would just continue to carry guns illegally.
That's an NRA point of view. What would happen is that carrying would become an immediate jail time situation which would get as many as possible off the street. Just because every gun wouldn't be eliminated isn't a good reason to not lower the number of available weapons. There would be no more gun shops and the only method of obtaining a firearm would then become illegal. Much easier to police.
This is a fairly coherent presentation of the situation. On the stats in the first paragraph, does this include the mass killings we've seen over the last whatever number of years you wish to use?