• flossdaily@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bullshit. Democrats would be happy to try ANYTHING to solve this issue.

      Republicans have blocked every avenue.

      Do not both-sides this extremely one-sided issue.

      • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bullshit. Democrats would be happy to try ANYTHING to solve this issue.

        And yet they’ve pushed literally nothing but various restrictions and bans focusing on firearms rather than attempting to address underlying root issues.

        Do not both-sides this extremely one-sided issue.

        Don’t pretend a failing of both parties is somehow only a failing of one.

        • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          As another poster highlighted, blue team doesn’t want to kill the golden goose.

          As things stand, they have a perpetual wedge issue to capitalize on, they have no obligation to actually put up as voters are too willfully ignorant to actually hold them accountable, and they get to profit off blue-aligned media every time they sensationalize such a thing, all while not actually having to address the pesky class/inequality issues they depend on.

          They have absolutely no incentive to change status quo.

    • Kalkaline @leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Mass shootings make up a tiny albeit horrific number of gun injuries and deaths. Suicide is the top spot, domestic assault and other crimes are next, followed by accidents/negligent discharge, and way down at the bottom of the list is mass shooting. https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ we need to focus on the whole issue. One thing is clear though, more guns is not the answer.

        • Kalkaline @leminal.space
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Guns are very effective at killing, something like 5% of people attempting suicide by gun are unsuccessful. Other methods have a much higher rate of survival. Taking the guns out of the equation means more lives saved.

          • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Taking the guns out of the equation means more lives saved.

            May mean more lives saved, even if it were feasible.

            Alternatively, addressing the suicide motivations and pressures addresses all means of suicide - not just those by firearm.

          • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Or perhaps improving the conditions that leads to most suicidal tendencies. Access to healthcare, mental health care, livable wages, housing, etc. Not addressing these issues is social murder.

            • Kalkaline @leminal.space
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’ll excuse me if I don’t hold my breath waiting on Republicans and centerist Democrats to deliver on those items.

      • kool_newt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        So that answer to suicide by guns would be to make people not want to kill themselves so much, maybe by making a less desperate world to live in, such as by ending capitalism – but you instead just want to make a statistic not look as bad by making suicide less efficient?

        • Kalkaline @leminal.space
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re being obtuse and not making a good faith argument so I refuse to give a substantive response.

    • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t see anything in the article that suggests the new office will only focus on mass shootings. While identifying and treating potential mass shooters would be great, they only account for a small percentage of overall gun deaths.

      • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you believe the overall pressures toward non-mass firearm violence are so different as to not overlap?

        I do not.

        • Danc4498@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe the pressures are the same, but that has nothing to do with how you prevent him violence. Your article is super specific to mass shootings, and this office, as far as we can tell, is about all gun violence.

          • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Maybe the pressures are the same, but that has nothing to do with how you prevent him violence.

            Other than highlight exactly what pressures to address, you mean? Given they are the pressures behind firearm violence? Those pressures?

            Your article is super specific to mass shootings, and this office, as far as we can tell, is about all gun violence.

            … which is why I highlight and ask about that overlap between the two.

    • treefrog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’re linking an article about a study funded by Biden’s justice department and the other poster is right about your both sides comments

      The OPs article is about an office Biden is creating for this exact type of research too.

      I understand the frustration. I have a 13 year old who his mom has tucked away in gun loving rural America.

      But your both sidesisms are not helpful.

      • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re linking an article about a study funded by Biden’s justice department and the other poster is right about your both sides comments.

        Care to support that?

        The OPs article is about an office Biden is creating for this exact type of research too.

        Right - Biden, of AR-ban fame.

        It remains to be seen whether or not this office will support any research or just parrot Everytown.

        I understand the frustration. I have a 13 year old who his mom has tucked away in gun loving rural America.

        But your both sidesisms are not helpful.

        I don’t believe you do, given your refusal to hold blue team accountable for their failings here in doing anything beyond focusing on symptoms. I’d argue such willful partisan blindness is less helpful.

        • treefrog@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Funded by the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the Department of Justice

          From the article you posted.

          The rest is math. They decided to do the project in 2019. Grants take anywhere from 8-20 months to get funded. It also takes time to put together the application.

          Biden’s Justice department funded this research. And since you’re being rude, for ages was clearly bullshit too. You linked an article talking about research that was conceived in 2019.

          • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            From the article you posted. The rest is math. They decided to do the project in 2019. Grants take anywhere from 8-20 months to get funded. It also takes time to put together the application.

            Ah, I see - you argue that a department is Biden’s for nothing more than his being President at the time.

            And since you’re being rude, for ages was clearly bullshit too. You linked an article talking about research that was conceived in 2019.

            Don’t project.

            You could argue it was exaggerating, sure. It doesn’t change the information has been available and continues to be summarily ignored by both parties.

            • treefrog@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The NRA (and GOP), have been stifling this type of research for years. So yes, I doubt the justice department under Trump would have approved their research grant.

              I forgave your hyperbole the first time, as you said, it was an exaggeration. Then you came at me like I don’t care about my son because you think I have political bias.

              I’m an anarcho-syndacalist. And I’m sure there’s a lot of other far left people down voting you. I’m not sucking the Democrats off. And acting like both sides are to blame isn’t helpful.

              The Democrats are sick of gun violence and I’m sure they’re aware of the research the justice department, under Biden, funded.

              • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The NRA (and GOP), have been stifling this type of research for years. So yes, I doubt the justice department under Trump would have approved their research grant.

                The NRA hasn’t been doing anything but fundraising for the GOP for quite some time.

                There’s not much reason to doubt such a thing - it would be one thing if there was a clear pattern of this institution rejecting such based on the current president but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

                I forgave your hyperbole the first time, as you said, it was an exaggeration. Then you came at me like I don’t care about my son because you think I have political bias.

                I’m not sure how you interpreted my response as a criticism that you don’t care about your child, though I do understand how such would make a person defensive. To be clear, I don’t believe you understand my frustration.

                I’m an anarcho-syndacalist. And I’m sure there’s a lot of other far left people down voting you. I’m not sucking the Democrats off. And acting like both sides are to blame isn’t helpful.

                I’m somewhere around left-libertarian, not that it matters. I find much common ground with an-com and an-syn and generally find these labels to be somewhat meaningless distinctions when considering the sheer overlap of beliefs and values.

                Intentionally withholding responsibility from one of the sides present in the equation, one which continues to ignore these inputs in favor of their own wedge-issue positions, is not just not helpful but is actively harmful.

                Or do you truly believe there’s absolutely nothing blue team could or should be doing here to use such findings in addressing the root issues of the most sensationalized facet of firearm violence which quite likely overlap with the rest of firearm violence?

                The Democrats are sick of gun violence and I’m sure they’re aware of the research the justice department, under Biden, funded.

                Their complete lack of action in line with the findings of such research combined with continued action in favor of their dear bans would disagree.

                • treefrog@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Their complete lack of action in line with the findings of such research combined with continued action in favor of their dear bans would disagree.

                  This will be probably be my last response.

                  Near the same time the article you linked was published, the Justice department started moving on, quite possibly, the very research they funded and that was discussed in the article.

                  https://www.npr.org/2021/06/07/1004088968/states-get-a-blueprint-for-red-flag-gun-removal-laws-from-the-justice-department

                  https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/07/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-initial-actions-to-address-the-gun-violence-public-health-epidemic/

                  Red flag laws and community based violence intervention. Those are the two things the researchers suggested, no?

                  Anyway, I think you made up your mind ages ago and there’s nothing me or anyone else can say that will change it.

                  Take care.

                  • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Near the same time the article you linked was published, the Justice department started moving on, quite possibly, the very research they funded and that was discussed in the article.

                    Red flag laws and community based violence intervention. Those are the two things the researchers suggested, no?

                    Are they? As you’ve shared them, they seem to entirely miss the point. Let’s go through these links.

                    In the first one, of the things The Justice Department will do, only one is even tangentially tied to those findings - it’s the publishing of a model for red-flag legislation for states. This seems to continue to ignore the highlight of the other findings in that in many cases those red flag laws already exist and aren’t sufficiently-well understood or acted on. In other words, it doesn’t actually address the deficiency.

                    Neither of the other two items are related - they’re just more blue-team ban bullshit.

                    Of their investing in items, the closest match is their call-out “A key part of community violence intervention strategies is to help connect individuals to job training and job opportunities.” - a thing that doesn’t actually align with the original findings at all. It might, at least, help with some of the often-argued socioeconomic pressures toward violence - in clicking through to another link, there are some details which reinforce this.

                    So - a close miss and a hopeful addressing of one underlying issue toward violence overall.

                    In your NPR link, they expound on the first link’s mention of a model for red-flag legislation - that it’s effectively an amalgamation of the two common strategies. Interestingly, they highlight but otherwise do nothing for the already-known issues - “It also said law enforcement needs training on these laws, “including on issues, for example, like filing a petition and executing an ERPO, implicit bias, de-escalation techniques, and crisis intervention.”” They also leave entirely unaddressed long-lived criticisms of such measures - "Critics of the laws, however, say that the rules are too arbitrary and can be weaponized against gun owners during personal disputes. Also at issue are instances of police approaching a person who is known to be armed and is perceived to be dangerous. "

                    That said, how many of the original findings are left mostly to entirely unaddressed?

                    How many of these are, say, addressed by any form of legislative effort?

                    We both know that answer.

                    Anyway, I think you made up your mind ages ago and there’s nothing me or anyone else can say that will change it.

                    Arguably, either party could… actually address the root issues highlighted by that study and it would change my mind regarding the utter lack of blue team focus on those issues.

                    It would have to actually happen, though, and… well… history seems an able instructor.