Shooter incident at elementary school in Uvalde, Texas - 19 children and 2 adults dead (8 Viewers)

[DaveXA]

Again the last 20 years puts the lie to this being anything close to a both sides issue
It’s a hacky argument that is the opposite of helpful
I’m not sayin ‘both sides’ aren’t capable, but in current practice they’re nowhere close to each other

Sure, but that's a low bar. I mean, one side is substantially worse than the other, but that's not really saying much though. It's not like they havent swapped places before. The point is ultimately we have to break the us vs them mentality and do what's right for the country, not one party or the other.

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

Yeah "fix the mental health problems" is not a solution.

It's not THE solution but it needs to be part of the mix. I read this interview yesterday and thought it was pretty thought-provoking - basically at the core of every mass shootings is a suicide attempt by the shooter. Hadn't really thought of it that way before.

You’ve written about how mass shootings are always acts of violent suicide. Do people realize this is what’s happening in mass shootings?

Peterson: I don’t think most people realize that these are suicides, in addition to homicides. Mass shooters design these to be their final acts. When you realize this, it completely flips the idea that someone with a gun on the scene is going to deter this. If anything, that’s an incentive for these individuals. They are going in to be killed.

It’s hard to focus on the suicide because these are horrific homicides. But it’s a critical piece because we know so much from the suicide prevention world that can translate here.​

Densley: If we explain this problem as pure evil or other labels like terrorist attack or hate crime, we feel better because it makes it seem like we’ve found the motive and solved the puzzle. But we haven’t solved anything. We’ve just explained the problem away. What this really problematic terminology does is prevent us from recognizing that mass shooters are us. This is hard for people to relate to because these individuals have done horrific, monstrous things. But three days earlier, that school shooter was somebody’s son, grandson, neighbor, colleague or classmate. We have to recognize them as the troubled human being earlier if we want to intervene before they become the monster.

The Buffalo shooter told his teacher that he was going to commit a murder-suicide after he graduated. People aren’t used to thinking that this kind of thing could be real because the people who do mass shootings are evil, psychopathic monsters and this is a kid in my class. There’s a disconnect.

Two Professors Found What Creates a Mass Shooter. Will Politicians Pay Attention?

Mass shooters overwhelmingly fit a certain profile, say Jillian Peterson and James Densley, which means it’s possible to ID and treat them before they commit violence.

www.politico.com

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Sure, but that's a low bar. I mean, one side is substantially worse than the other, but that's not really saying much though. It's not like they havent swapped places before. The point is ultimately we have to break the us vs them mentality and do what's right for the country, not one party or the other.

As a mod, maybe you think this is best bc it avoids specific politicians/politics

But I also I think knee jerk centrists really need to do some soul searching and figure out if their philosophy is an actual dynamic or - in this 21st century instance - is it a static position that helps perpetuate the decline of political discourse and results in the country

All due respect
And I mean that

 

[Cage1]

It's not THE solution but it needs to be part of the mix.

I'm not saying we don't try to fix the mental health situation. I'm saying "fix the mental health situation" is a solution like "stop the gun violence" is a solution. It's just a goal, not a solution. "Mandatory mental health screenings prior to purchasing and as an ongoing requirement to ownership" is a proposed solution.

 

[buzd]

knee jerk centrists

Esplain

 

[Heathen Saint]

Sure, but that's a low bar. I mean, one side is substantially worse than the other, but that's not really saying much though. It's not like they havent swapped places before. The point is ultimately we have to break the us vs them mentality and do what's right for the country, not one party or the other.

Well the problem seems to be that the 'them' have stood decade after decade firmly against any possibly life saving changes to gun legislation, healthcare, etc.

I can wholeheartedly say that what is right for this country is improving and saving human lives here. We have to get past this 'both sides' ideal and thinking that diplomacy, 'the middle' or this outrageously naive idea that the 'moderate solution' will do anything but fail us if we want to make any palpable change.

I'm happy voting as if another one of 'them' should never take office again - based upon the stance that we should protect innocent beings from these events, and that inaction or 'moderate' solutions to appease a side is equivalent to being complicit. Nothing less.

 

[UptownSaintsFan]

It's not THE solution but it needs to be part of the mix. I read this interview yesterday and thought it was pretty thought-provoking - basically at the core of every mass shootings is a suicide attempt by the shooter. Hadn't really thought of it that way before.

Two Professors Found What Creates a Mass Shooter. Will Politicians Pay Attention?

Mass shooters overwhelmingly fit a certain profile, say Jillian Peterson and James Densley, which means it’s possible to ID and treat them before they commit violence.

www.politico.com

I think the point is that that party has done nothing more than say we need to address mental health. There has been no real bill pushed by them that would do anything like that. In fact, they've done the opposite, since they want to reduce healthcare for people. A quick google, and this article (an opinion piece) seems to be arguing the same:

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Esplain

2 things - let’s use sexual assault as our working concept
Let’s say a centrist hears a story about date r*pe on public radio - thinks ‘that’s horrible, something must be done’
Then hears a story Breitbart about a man being sexually assaulted by his wife
The knee jerk centrist position is that sexual assault is a ‘both sides’ problem
The ‘fix’ to the both sides problem would almost certainly lead to even fewer people/police believing a female victim

Then there is the issue of drift
If a centrist put themselves squarely in the middle of the political spectrum in the Reagan years. If they stayed ‘in the middle’ they would be to the right of Bush 2 - not centrist in any political sense (only a mathematical one)

 

[DaveXA]

As a mod, maybe you think this is best bc it avoids specific politicians/politics

But I also I think knee jerk centrists really need to do some soul searching and figure out if their philosophy is an actual dynamic or - in this 21st century instance - is it a static position that helps perpetuate the decline of political discourse and results in the country

All due respect
And I mean that

"Knee jerk centrists" really undercuts the rest of your post and basically tells me they're the enemy. So, you're not going to persuade people with that sort of rhetoric. It's part of why people remain centrists. Not to mention that sort of comment actually perpetuates the "decline of political discourse" as you stated. Soul searching? Yeah, I'd say so.

And fwiw, being a mod has nothing to do with it.

 

[DaveXA]

2 things - let’s use sexual assault as our working concept
Let’s say a centrist hears a story about date r*pe on public radio - thinks ‘that’s horrible, something must be done’
Then hears a story Breitbart about a man being sexually assaulted by his wife
The knee jerk centrist position is that sexual assault is a ‘both sides’ problem
The ‘fix’ to the both sides problem would almost certainly lead to even fewer people/police believing a female victim

Then there is the issue of drift
If a centrist put themselves squarely in the middle of the political spectrum in the Reagan years. If they stayed ‘in the middle’ they would be to the right of Bush 2 - not centrist in any political sense (only a mathematical one)

That's not how I think though.

 

[DaveXA]

I think the point is that that party has done nothing more than say we need to address mental health. There has been no real bill pushed by them that would do anything like that. In fact, they've done the opposite, since they want to reduce healthcare for people. A quick google, and this article (an opinion piece) seems to be arguing the same:

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

This is a valid point, I agree. The problem I have with a lot of this is the lack of tangible results when it comes to rhetoric. The talk is old and we need real action. Mental health and gun regulations both need to be addressed. I realize some use talking points to distract people from taking real action, but that's a politics problem. Most people favor increased gun regulations and most favor improving conditions and medical care for mentally ill people. The problem is politicians are using one or the other for the purpose of currying favor with their bases rather than acknoedging that a large majority of the population want these broad reforms.

 

[bclemms]

Actually, this is option #1.

Option #2 is they change the legislation the house provided in order to add a few loop holes, increase penalties for breaking these new laws, increase funding to police to buy bigger guns and add rapid tactical response teams with tanks being driven by screeching bald eagles that will be used to police citizens when school shootings aren't taking place. You know, for best value. Then it will get sit back to the house and both sides will bicker. The Dems will have the majority but Mitch will whip the bi-partisan support from the Reps in place to stand firm on the edit of the bill. The Dems will accuse the Reps of preventing gun control. The Reps will accuse the dems of wanting to defund police. This will get drawn out until after the next election at which point the Reps will have majority control and they will accuse the Dems of not wanting gun control. Then finally, they will agree to a half assed bill that will change nothing and finally bring it to a vote where Rand Paul will pull some sort of look at me stunt in order to hold the whole thing up. Finally, it will pass, we will spend Billions, further arm the police with military style weapons, the bill will end being used to round up black folk and throw them in prison.

If the options were being presented by Vegas, option #2 playing out exactly the way I described would still have higher odds of happening then passing a bi-partisan gun control bill that has 90% of public support.

House passes sweeping gun bill to raise assault rifle purchase age to 21; plan faces long odds in the Senate

The House passed a sweeping gun bill that would raise the minimum age to purchase an assault rifle to 21, but it faces long odds in the Senate.

www.cnbc.com

Here we go. Republicans are pushing to unseal juvenile records and increasing school security in exchange for slightly better background checks.

House bill today will never pass the Senate.

 

[DaveXA]

House passes sweeping gun bill to raise assault rifle purchase age to 21; plan faces long odds in the Senate

The House passed a sweeping gun bill that would raise the minimum age to purchase an assault rifle to 21, but it faces long odds in the Senate.

www.cnbc.com

Here we go. Republicans are pushing to unseal juvenile records and increasing school security in exchange for slightly better background checks.

House bill today will never pass the Senate.

Even though it should.

 

[kizzy821]

The stories about the kids were so precious.

 

[gboudx]

I would’ve voted for him.