LogFAQs > #972465579

Ozmose posted...

Funny how that push seems to vanish when it's a white male shooter. It's almost like they want to create some kind of public bias.

I see the push pretty unilaterally. Identifying shooters gives them recognition, and very often the primary motivating factor for a shooting like this is that those around the shooter have failed to recognize how disturbed they are. Somebody on the edge sees somebody else fall off of it and get the whole country talking about them? That's going to seem awfully attractive, and that's a problem no matter what demographic they belong to.

Statistically, the vast majority of mass shooters are males, and the majority of them (at least, a proportion that's in line with the general population) are white if you discount gang violence that happens to qualify as a mass casualty event (which tends to involve fewer white people for SES reasons and also happens for different reasons than what most people associate with "mass shooting," so discounting that is reasonable). There isn't even any particular need to create a bias in public perception because what you're calling "public bias" is just statistical reality.

Ozmose posted...

Here are the true champions of gun control. It's heartwarming to see so many people here share the same philosophy.

Why would you consider them to be the "true champions" and not the dozens of countries that have enacted effective gun control laws without committing genocide? Or are you one of those people who genuinely believes it's only a matter of time before every country that isn't as well-armed as the US gets murdered by their government?

Yellow posted...

Get this, a transgender female shooter this time.

A trans person who attended a Christian private school in Tennessee and ended up with severe mental health issues later in life? I can't imagine how that happened, or why the school ended up being the target of their breakdown.

Gaawa_chan posted...

https://twitter.com/VaushV/status/1640597506475327488
JFC.

I mean, I can see the concerns there, but any sensible gun control laws would have to entail a mental health assessment for the prospective license holder, and that would likely end up ruling out a solid chunk of trans people. Now, that's very different from saying "all trans people must be disarmed no matter how well-adjusted" and even ends up running into an odd loophole in that gender dysphoria is commonly no longer considered a mental disorder (instead physical, aligning with the medical focus of treatment options instead of psychological), and it's a lot more sweeping than "only the trans people should be disarmed," but the end result is that a disproportionate number of trans people wouldn't be eligible to own a gun. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, provided it's done on the basis of a proper mental health assessment and not simply saying "all trans people are mentally ill," but "don't take away trans people's guns" also doesn't quite work.