Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2015-08-05 06:45 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2015-08-05 06:45 pm
[ SECRET POST #3136 ]
⌈ Secret Post #3136 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02.
__________________________________________________
03.
__________________________________________________
04.
__________________________________________________
05.
__________________________________________________
06.
__________________________________________________
07.
__________________________________________________
08.
__________________________________________________
09.
__________________________________________________
10.
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 024 secrets from Secret Submission Post #448.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
Re: So we've been completely misreppresenting this attack.
(Anonymous) 2015-08-06 03:35 am (UTC)(link)Re: So we've been completely misreppresenting this attack.
He has a history of severe mental illness. He shouldn't have been able to get a gun (and possibly wasn't, who knows what he attempted before this).
"Cracking down on guns" doesn't really do shit about spree killings like this. It would reduce the lethality of other crimes however.
Re: So we've been completely misreppresenting this attack.
(Anonymous) 2015-08-06 04:42 am (UTC)(link)Gun control would reduce the lethality of attempts of spree killings too and that seems like something worth to aim for imo.
Re: So we've been completely misreppresenting this attack.
I'm not sure it would reduce the lethality of these attempts because, again, there are so many guns out there already and the shorts of people who would do this are frequently fixated enough to obtain what they need.
It's also suspect that all these calls for "gun control! gun control!" only happen when white suburbanites die, but that's just because it's become one of those ideological things people yell about when prompted to make sure everyone knows they're on the right side. Some guy in a gang mows down a bunch of black kids at a birthday party and people are all "thugs! Rap lyrics! What's wrong with 'you people.'"
EDIT: I think people are going to read all this as I'm some kind of conspiracy theorist? I'm pro-gun but don't own any and approach it from the left rather than the right. I think the sorts of people who carry handguns into Target are crazy. Let's just say I'm alienated from most of the "2nd amendment" community.
Re: So we've been completely misreppresenting this attack.
(Anonymous) 2015-08-06 04:56 am (UTC)(link)Yeah sure there's a bunch of guns already out there, no one thinks that's going to magically fix things, it's a start. Part of the issue is the normalisation of such lethal weapons. Much more of the issue is social dysfunction/alienation in general, and what causes/perpetuates that.
Non-US nonnies are comparing their countries to the US and seeing some (to them) glaring pointers of difference that is contributing to the alarming prevalence of mass killings in the US.
Re: So we've been completely misreppresenting this attack.
I realize this, but it's not treated at such. "Gun control" can mean a few different things. And often just yelling for "gun control" without any real thought behind it leads to stupid laws. The SHARP laws in NY for example, which were written and passed within a month of Sandy Hook. They appear to be aimed squarely at making sure guns don't look scary rather than actually doing anything. They banned certain kinds of grips, which don't actually make guns more dangerous. A 22 with a pistol grip is not suddenly more dangerous. And limited the amount of bullets in a magazine to a number not manufactured, which meant the law didn't even work properly. Meanwhile NY already had very strict gun control laws that appeared to be working. We already had magazine limits and limits on automatic weapons. It's very hard to get a concealed handgun permit. But they wanted to pass a law to say they'd passed a law.
For some reason people don't want to talk about this. The sorts of weapons being used in spree killings aren't new. There hasn't been an explosion in people buying them. But there has been an increase in these mass shootings. That's disturbing, and I don't think more gun control would fix that underlying issue. Again, the guns are already out there. And we might see people using small bombs instead? Which isn't an argument against gun control, just saying it isn't the magical panacea people appear to think it is.
Meanwhile, homicide overall is down.
Re: So we've been completely misreppresenting this attack.
(Anonymous) 2015-08-06 05:13 am (UTC)(link)Re: So we've been completely misreppresenting this attack.
(Anonymous) 2015-08-06 04:58 am (UTC)(link)Of course, once you're there, you end up constantly getting pissy at the people on your side trying to ban all the guns, but c'est la vie.
Re: So we've been completely misreppresenting this attack.
Re: So we've been completely misreppresenting this attack.
(Anonymous) 2015-08-06 05:22 pm (UTC)(link)But having laws that make harder to get specific types of (new) guns* in the future? Making harder get carrying permits, specially in urban areas*? Would help in the future.
And not doing anything... well, won't change anything.
*I'm being specific here, since you keep reading things that aren't being said when someone isn't being specific enough.
Re: So we've been completely misreppresenting this attack.
(Anonymous) 2015-08-06 06:34 pm (UTC)(link)