There are insurance/registration issues that can address that. Of course there endless possible hypotheticals. I’m personally in favor of some sort of “drivers license” equivalent for guns.
But a 21 year old age limit almost certainly would have prevented Uvalde.
Valid, I’m sure. Hinkley was the last that made anytype of major news, unless I’m mistaken.
There is so much that is unknown. Everything about his true motives will, likely, be speculation forever. But it’s best to let the FBI be the one that does the information reveal.
This kid was 20 though. He might have had psychosis. Last presidential assassination attempt was Hinkley. This is around the age things like schizophrenia start to present themselves IIRC. This might have been a suicide by cop type situation and he wanted to be famous in the process? Who the hell knows.
What if we had a law that you had to be 21 to buy guns though? That’s in line with “common sense” gun control. I’ve heard Obama say that phrase countless times since Sandy Hook. It could have made this a little different, maybe? It almost certainly would have prevented Uvalde. This is political violence, it’s horrible, I think this will help Trump win. Any left leaning person with half a brain can see that imo. This is also gun violence though. Gun control has to part of the answer to this. Remember who the Brady Bill was named after.
A judge in Tennessee is the one preventing the release of this manifesto. Media outlets are the ones trying to obtain it. Try again.
Ask a question then reply telling me I’m wrong? Whatever doofus.
The Buffalo shooter also livestreamed part of his shooting on twitch, with a swastika on his weapon. The media getting information is significantly different than police releasing information. Assuming media orginaztions are in a conspiracy to push a narrative and not just squeezing every dime they can out of these tragedies is goofy. And I’m writing some of their names to demonstrate that my knowledge of these crime is a little beyond average.
I’d suggest you pull your head out of your ass.
It’s becoming less and less common. Stephen Paddocks motives weren’t released til 3 years or so later. If the Uvalde shooter had one it wasn’t released. Anything known about the Newtown shooter was found by journalists way later. The rest happen when the killer is still alive.
This is the only case that I know of where the killers writings are under control of the victims families.
You’ve been spending hours pretending that there is a scenario where the murder of children can be rationalized into a logical motive. They. Can. Not.
Making their manifesto increases their celebrity, which is a bad thing. Because spree killers want to be famous. This is 101 of the profile of these type of killers. You’re too invested in the culture war around this to see the occoms razor.
Low energy. I was saying you were assuming this ruling had something to do with a christo-facist agenda, numbnuts
There’s way to small of a sample size for non-white cis male shooters for you to justify that statement. What was Nicolas Cruzes motivation? Or James Holmes? Or charles Whittmans? They’re just violent psychopaths. Attaching a logical motivation to the acts of violent psychopaths is a fools errand, regardless of the identity.
Even the bullied trope comes from the Columbine shooters and they were not bullied, they were bullies. The saturation of media coverage led to presumptions of their motives. The public making those diagnoses is harmful and increases the celebrity of the killers which will motivate the next one.
That’s not a presumption though, or even speculation. Was the shooter bullied by kids they killed? No, again, that’s speculation though. Even if they were bullied, it’s misplaced anger and an inability to cope with their own issues. Releasing the manifesto would validate their martyrdom.
Assuming this ruling has anything to do with a christo-facist agenda is the most egregious and, likely, wrong presumption anyone is making. If I’m defending the christo-facist you are defending the motives of a, literal, mass murder of children.
Presuming how? My main point is that the shooters motivations is mostly irrelevant and releasing their writings dould encourage copycats. Like we actually saw with Elliot Rodgers.
What am I presuming?
That’s apples and oranges. This shooter has the potential to be the Trans version of Elliot Rodgers. Trying to attach a christo-facist motivation to this ruling is a stretch and a half.
The motivations of mass killers isn’t really relevant for anything. People capable of that level of violence are such an anomaly that other indicators are more important, from a psychological perspective, than their self-determined motives.
Largest mass killer in us history was the Vegas shooter, Stephen Paddock. His motivation was that he was feeling slighted by the casinos for not getting enough perks for being a “big spender”. What is a psychologist supposed to do with that for helping prevent other mass shooters? Trying to attach some silence of the lambs bullshit to crimes like this is foolish. Even then, that’s the FBI doing it which then can be trickled out to medical journals etc. The best thing for the public is for these killer to be remembered as dead monsters.
It is material was reviewed by a judge, the shooters family and the victims families. If you want to say it’s presumptively a manifesto and not almost definitely a manifesto. Then use that distinction to rationalize your point, congratulations.
You’re missing the point entirely. Releasing the material was, presumptively, part of the shooters motivation. Increasing the notoriety of the perpetrator. Releasing the material would validate the shooters motives and encourage copycats. I don’t know why you would think that’s not enough.
Perfect example of this is california senate races and the jungle primaries. Establishment democrats help boost the republican so the head to head wont Schiff vs Porter.
The advertising was an easy and obvious example. I set you up for a straw man but whatever. If you don’t understand the harmful effects social media has on mental health and how it’s different from other forms of media/content, I’m not going to hold your hand through that. The sophistication of engagement algorithms should be obvious. The purpose of a surgeons general warning would be to raise awareness of those specific mental health issues that can be aggravated by excessive social media use. Raising the awareness of an issue is step in the right direction. Fine to call it a band aid but there’s no need to shit on progress of any type.
Piracy bro lol there’s apples and oranges but that’s skateboards and dinosaurs.
Even with your point being valid there’s tremendous value for society for making somethings as hard as possible.