Red Mosquito

verb_to_trust wrote:

spike wrote:Okay?

Bi_3 is rightfully concerned that plastering pictures of exploded teens everywhere would lead to one up copy cat killings. I don't think that is a concern with a repeat 9/11.

it wasnt teens

Peeps wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

spike wrote:Okay?

Bi_3 is rightfully concerned that plastering pictures of exploded teens everywhere would lead to one up copy cat killings. I don't think that is a concern with a repeat 9/11.

it wasnt teens

Kids. Whatever.

They just can't help themselves. They won't take the win.

Which makes this even sadder. Human garbage bin A-a-ron Rupar... and lordy those replies... show just how important it is to proggles to take the morally pure loss over the compromise win even when it's a huge win that will inevitably save hundreds if not thousands of lives every year by making it look she is both siding it vs. complaining about exactly what he goes and does.

Full Speech here:

verb_to_trust wrote:

spike wrote:Okay?

Bi_3 is rightfully concerned that plastering pictures of exploded teens everywhere would lead to one up copy cat killings. I don't think that is a concern with a repeat 9/11.

I commend your thread responsibility.

My wife’s cousin is (was?) a state trooper here in CT, major crimes division. Said the Sandy Hook photos were unreal. I’m not really in favor of releasing pictures of kids literally torn to shreds, but at what point does the sensible side just give up and say “look, god damnit!” At some point someone will decide it needs to happen.

Rob wrote:My wife’s cousin is (was?) a state trooper here in CT, major crimes division. Said the Sandy Hook photos were unreal. I’m not really in favor of releasing pictures of kids literally torn to shreds, but at what point does the sensible side just give up and say “look, god damnit!” At some point someone will decide it needs to happen.

Prolife protesters have done this with graphic images of aborted fetuses and it doesn't seem to make many converts, just pisses people off.

simple schoolboy wrote:

Rob wrote:My wife’s cousin is (was?) a state trooper here in CT, major crimes division. Said the Sandy Hook photos were unreal. I’m not really in favor of releasing pictures of kids literally torn to shreds, but at what point does the sensible side just give up and say “look, god damnit!” At some point someone will decide it needs to happen.

Prolife protesters have done this with graphic images of aborted fetuses and it doesn't seem to make many converts, just pisses people off.

Could it be that the prolifers are wrong to want to convince someone to have to carry a fetus they don't want?

As opposed to trying to show people that certain types of guns (not all guns, Cricket) should be restricted from individual ownership?

elliseamos wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

Rob wrote:My wife’s cousin is (was?) a state trooper here in CT, major crimes division. Said the Sandy Hook photos were unreal. I’m not really in favor of releasing pictures of kids literally torn to shreds, but at what point does the sensible side just give up and say “look, god damnit!” At some point someone will decide it needs to happen.

Prolife protesters have done this with graphic images of aborted fetuses and it doesn't seem to make many converts, just pisses people off.

Could it be that the prolifers are wrong to want to convince someone to have to carry a fetus they don't want?

As opposed to trying to show people that certain types of guns (not all guns, Cricket) should be restricted from individual ownership?

Just talkin' effectiveness of tactics my man.

New Zealand shooter live streamed his attack which was rightfully heavily suppressed. Memefication of these things just encourage copycats.

simple schoolboy wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

Rob wrote:My wife’s cousin is (was?) a state trooper here in CT, major crimes division. Said the Sandy Hook photos were unreal. I’m not really in favor of releasing pictures of kids literally torn to shreds, but at what point does the sensible side just give up and say “look, god damnit!” At some point someone will decide it needs to happen.

Prolife protesters have done this with graphic images of aborted fetuses and it doesn't seem to make many converts, just pisses people off.

Could it be that the prolifers are wrong to want to convince someone to have to carry a fetus they don't want?

As opposed to trying to show people that certain types of guns (not all guns, Cricket) should be restricted from individual ownership?

Just talkin' effectiveness of tactics my man.

New Zealand shooter live streamed his attack which was rightfully heavily suppressed. Memefication of these things just encourage copycats.

Unfortunately.

But there's also a chance some people have no idea what these things do. Be it battlefield or classroom or movie theater or music festival or city street or night club or supermarket or church or funeral or birthday party or traffic stop...

simple schoolboy wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

Rob wrote:My wife’s cousin is (was?) a state trooper here in CT, major crimes division. Said the Sandy Hook photos were unreal. I’m not really in favor of releasing pictures of kids literally torn to shreds, but at what point does the sensible side just give up and say “look, god damnit!” At some point someone will decide it needs to happen.

Prolife protesters have done this with graphic images of aborted fetuses and it doesn't seem to make many converts, just pisses people off.

Could it be that the prolifers are wrong to want to convince someone to have to carry a fetus they don't want?

As opposed to trying to show people that certain types of guns (not all guns, Cricket) should be restricted from individual ownership?

Just talkin' effectiveness of tactics my man.

New Zealand shooter live streamed his attack which was rightfully heavily suppressed. Memefication of these things just encourage copycats.

Blows my mind people can’t understand this

verb_to_trust wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

Rob wrote:My wife’s cousin is (was?) a state trooper here in CT, major crimes division. Said the Sandy Hook photos were unreal. I’m not really in favor of releasing pictures of kids literally torn to shreds, but at what point does the sensible side just give up and say “look, god damnit!” At some point someone will decide it needs to happen.

Prolife protesters have done this with graphic images of aborted fetuses and it doesn't seem to make many converts, just pisses people off.

Could it be that the prolifers are wrong to want to convince someone to have to carry a fetus they don't want?

As opposed to trying to show people that certain types of guns (not all guns, Cricket) should be restricted from individual ownership?

Just talkin' effectiveness of tactics my man.

New Zealand shooter live streamed his attack which was rightfully heavily suppressed. Memefication of these things just encourage copycats.

Blows my mind people can’t understand this

Damnatio memoriae. Burn their birth certificates, never publish the names of the perpetrators.

That's no good for ratings, so we'll never get that of course

Brings me back to this question.

McParadigm wrote:Example hypothetical: three years from now, gun violence in the United States is down 10% due in part to components of this legislation. That’s not nothing, but it does still mean that instead of 44,000 people dying…40,000 people die. Instead of 5,000 children being shot to death, 4,500 children are shot to death.

Pretending that outcome, what would our best next steps be? Do we call that good enough? If not, what does the next legislation need to do?

Now that we know the content of this bill, I’d be particularly interested to hear how centrists would answer the question above.

McParadigm wrote:

Brings me back to this question.

McParadigm wrote:Example hypothetical: three years from now, gun violence in the United States is down 10% due in part to components of this legislation. That’s not nothing, but it does still mean that instead of 44,000 people dying…40,000 people die. Instead of 5,000 children being shot to death, 4,500 children are shot to death.

Pretending that outcome, what would our best next steps be? Do we call that good enough? If not, what does the next legislation need to do?

Now that we know the content of this bill, I’d be particularly interested to hear how centrists would answer the question above.

There's a reason the pro 2A side won't compromise, it'll never be enough. It's always incrementalism.

So is that statement (no compromise) reflective of your own personal “best next steps” philosophy for reducing gun deaths, or is it not that at all?

McParadigm wrote: Brings me back to this question.

McParadigm wrote:Example hypothetical: three years from now, gun violence in the United States is down 10% due in part to components of this legislation. That’s not nothing, but it does still mean that instead of 44,000 people dying…40,000 people die. Instead of 5,000 children being shot to death, 4,500 children are shot to death.

Pretending that outcome, what would our best next steps be? Do we call that good enough? If not, what does the next legislation need to do?

Now that we know the content of this bill, I’d be particularly interested to hear how centrists would answer the question above.

This is fair question, but I think success metrics will be more complex than that. A small majority of guns deaths are suicides vs homicides (25k vs 19k IIRC) and those two groups are largely concentrated particular areas:

Suicides:


Homicides:


source: https://publichealth.jhu.edu/sites/defa ... 2022-b.pdf

A decrease in homicides driven by provisions of the bill (closing boyfriend loophole, red flag funding, and juvenile records check expansion) might be offset by an increase in suicides (white boomers seeing the world as increasingly hopeless), so the metric must be a little more clear.


But to answer in general terms, a significant updated national mental health services bill, tied to social security or medicare maybe, would probably be the next logical step in tackling gun deaths because if we want that total down we have to pivot some resources to suicides.

Bi_3 wrote:But to answer in general terms, a significant updated national mental health services bill, tied to social security or medicare maybe, would probably be the next logical step in tackling gun deaths because if we want that total down we have to pivot some resources to suicides.

Thank you. This is exactly the perspective I was curious to hear from.

I'm not opposed to this idea.

However, the plan depends on reimbursement increases which won't happen anytime soon. We can shift to the sickcare thread to discuss it if folks would prefer.

In an attempt to summarize, the plan as described here would be to convince mental health professionals to continue to accept pennies on the dollar from insurers & medicare alike so that hospitals can run even further into the red trying to staff said professionals?

If you're telling me a psychiatrist will suddenly be paid like a radiologist I might see some improvement, both in the number of med students looking to get into psychiatry as well as the slots &/or beds available for mental health treatment, but you're depending on so many stakeholders accepting change that it seems ludicrous to me.

Red flags should allow for getting guns from those that are suicidal, no? Making those laws more robust would be good. The straw purchaser piece of this law might be grounds for expansion too. Again, for the crickets in the crowd, nobody is planning to take away your guns. Just restrict these things in every way possible.

The don’t worry people won’t take your guns folx are the same people who insisted there wouldn’t be drag queen story time at kindergarten

Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read this. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

verb_to_trust wrote:The don’t worry people won’t take your guns folx are the same people who insisted there wouldn’t be drag queen story time at kindergarten

Where is this kindergarten that has a drag queen telling stories?