157
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
157 points (91.5% liked)
News
23301 readers
1151 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So if it's not a mass shooting, we should be fine with it, that's the angle?
An example from the article:
I still don't see the distinction.
Rather I see what seems like an arbitrary distinction. The authors are trying to make. What I don't see is why that distinction is relevant.
Because the solutions look different.
"take away the guns" would solve for both
But that doesn’t remove the impetus for violence. Preventing school violence requires more than simply removing the weapons for violence.
Sure, but there's still a difference between school violence with guns and school violence with fists
Typically, the opportunity to get a gun. But the violence that motivates either is typically the same. That’s why school violence prevention is, itself, typically the same, regardless of how it may end.
"My son got beat up in school today"
"My son got shot and killed in school today"
It's the guns. It's always been the guns. And that's why this country is uniquely dealing with this problem. It's not hard to see it, unless you don't want to.
Stopping violence before either of those things happens is the point. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather neither of those happen. 
Taking the nihilist and defeatist attitude that one of those must happen, and therefore we must settle for it with half-measures meant only to prevent the other is bullshit. 
Restricting access to guns is specifically achievable (see also: most of the rest of the world) and would save many lives.
In tandem, sure let's work on preventing violence in general. I'm all in favor, but achieving this semi-utopian goal seems far more challenging.
Nobody said it wouldn’t be difficult, but it’s better than putting up with a bullied child— or a dead one.
Schools should be safe spaces for children to learn, not battlefields to navigate.
Then restrict gun ownership. It's the most rational action which can be taken to stop American classrooms being stained by blood.
But... I know I am just venting. I know this isn't going to happen. Millions of Americans are demonstrably fine with other people losing their little girl or boy, their small bodies torn apart by bullets, just so they can have a gun for whatever reason. It's just the way it is, sadly.
Obviously, gun ownership should be restricted. What I’m saying, is that should be one part of a multifaceted approach  to address the many types of school violence. But my point here is that regulating gun ownership does not address the root cause of school violence, only a symptom. 
Judging by the downvote brigade whenever somebody argues for gun control, which also plagues Reddit, it seems not so obvious to many.
Might not be what you’re saying, but how you’re saying it
Perhaps. I think it's pretty obvious no matter how it's phrased, or who posts it, comments critical of unrestricted gun ownership typically get downvoted without a lot of replies. At least you are engaging and we're having a conversation.
It might partially solve for it, by reducing severity of these acts, but guns are really just a means to violence. There are plenty of other ways to enact violence if that's what you want to do.
The fact that guns are easy to get, easy to use, and are a means to extreme, and usually fatal violence is a huge factor to consider in the increase in the violence they contribute to.  Not all weapons are created equal, and the type of weapon they are cannot be weighed equally to other weapons when calculating how each type of weapon contributes to violence. And especially considering the fact that most lethal violence that is committed is committed with a gun. 
No, that's just a distraction the ruling class throws at us to prevent us from addressing the real issue: the disparity in wealth.
Sweden has a higher wealth inequality index than the United States. Strange, how that doesn't lead to an epidemic of school shootings without unfettered access to guns.
Bad example. Sweden is currently suffering the worst gun violence of any scandinavian country.
I know. It's still way better than the US. Because guns are a bigger factor than wealth disparity, mental health care, social homogeneity, or anything else which is typically pointed to by people who value their access to guns more than other's lives.
Are you asserting that school shootings are caused by wealth inequality? Do you have any data to back that up? 
No the person I'm replying to is.
While it may be a factor, I'm pointing out America is by no means unique in having these problems, such as wealth inequality. In fact all the problems so often touted as the cause for gun violence are not unique to America. The main exception is the incredible proliferation of guns and the lax regulations surrounding them.
But many Americans love their guns, as long as they don't have to pay the price in blood for it, they'll continue blaming other factors..
No they’re not, they just said that was a distraction.
It's a specious argument.