No. “Quit popularizing it”, is more my position. I am not suggesting that it’s the only step that needs to be taken (that would be silly), but the rest seem to be well represented here.
There is ample evidence to back up the notion that getting mass shootings off the news would result in fewer mass shootings. To get you started:
Maybe their health care system recognizes and helps mentally ill people in the first place. I seem to recall mass killing still happen in other countries. No one is immune. ETA - as someone else pointed out, often times the people closest to these people knew they were sick and did nothing and even enabled them.
Sorry if I sound callous about giving something up because 4.4 people a year go on a mass killing. What rights are you willing to give up for a more secure environment? Who needs privacy if you have nothing to hide.
Note that a very narrow definition is being used here: “Mass killings are defined as singular or events with at least four victims who die within a short period of time. In mass public shootings, all the victims are killed with firearms in a public location such as a workplace, house of worship, school or restaurant.”
There are a LOT of other not-quite-mass, not-quite public shootings that this report ignores.
Yeah I’d say they are. Gonna kill someone because you can’t get a date? Or that you hate some religion? It’s as absurd as it sounds, and yeah, mentally unstable.
How do they get guns? Because driven people will get whatever they need to accomplish their goal. That includes crazy people. Taking guns, knives, or whatever out of the picture changes nothing. The only way is to take a good look at how we ignore the signs, bow to political correctness, or fear.
(Engage pedantry)
It does fail to meet the CDC definition of an epidemic:
(Disengage pedantry)
So yeah, I’ll freely admit there are lots of rights I’m willing to give up in the name of public safety.
Mud Island is the correct term. Especially at this point in time. Don’t come back; it’s fucking pissing down.
What rights are you willing to give up for a more secure environment?
How about as many as, say, Australia, Austria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, or the United Kingdom?
In other words; basically none?
Edit: modified list. Now based on cross correlation between gun-death stats and freedom indices. Countries on the list above have lower rates of gun homicides, and at least equal to - but often often often better - scores on the ‘Freedom of the World’, ‘Index of Economic Freedom’, and ‘Press Freedom Index’ indices. All data from Wikipedia.
It’s very. easy to misunderstand and write an angry reply on the Internet.
But it’s very hard to realize you’ve made a mistake, and apparently, nearly impossible to apologize on the Internet.
Yet you managed 
I recall 7 ounce bottles…
They have 7.5oz cans now as well. I think they are marketed as mixers or something.
This equine carcass was beaten into rotten foam many years ago.
I suppose you don’t actually want to buy/do any of the things listed? How easy is it to give up the rights you don’t want to utilize anyway?
I am willing to let my neighbor have cyanide, to use your earlier example, as long as I can buy some without trouble for my electroplating.
My life would be certainly be improved if I personally didn’t have to worry about a driver’s license or pay vehicle registration fees or get my car smog checked. But I recognize that collectively we’d be worse off if everyone was able to forego those responsibilities.
There are plenty of similar inconveniences I deal with all the time, but I accept them as part of the cost of living in a society.
Or, more accurately, the specific kind of society you prefer. But it also results in authoritarianism and classism, which are not acceptable compromises to some people.
Because the NRA controls and sets all political faultlines.
When a weapons manufacturing lobby no longer sets political discourse. Perhaps we can have honest discussion.
Loose gun laws promote militarization of the police and further authoritarianism. Classism seems to me to be completely peripheral to regulations.
[quote=“OtherMichael, post:39, topic:63165, full:true”]
They’ve also got moose to keep them in check.[/quote]
Well that does explain why Maine, Vermont & New Hampshire have murder rates on-par with the Canadian average, despite having lots of guns and little regulation of firearms carry.
No - police and military being controlled by their own cabals rather than by the public are what allows them to expand their operations.
Hardly - regulations result from having one special class of people to legislate them, and then a second to enforce them.
Today also marks the passing of another child shot and killed by a child. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/boy-11-charged-with-manslaughter-in-shooting-death-of-3-year-old/
That sounds interesting in theory, but in reality places that have approached gun control through regulation haven’t seen the problems you fear. The US which has avoided gun control has serious problems with authoritarianism and especially classism.
