6 ms·

I don't know why you are getting downvoted. It is the same here. Every time I see a US city name in my Twitter sidebar here in Australia, I just know that it is

I don't know why you are getting downvoted. It is the same here. Every time I see a US city name in my Twitter sidebar here in Australia, I just know that it is another mass shooting without having to click. I hate that it has become so common now that I have just stopped clicking to find out more about them. This sort of thing used to horrify me, but nowadays I just feel so numb about it, and that scares me because I feel that I am becoming less empathetic and more cynical.

tomlockwood 7y ago
I also wonder if Americans who think this is a problem with the media inspiring more shootings would take the same tack on reporting terrorist incidents. Wouldn't it make sense to say we shouldn't report on them, given that attitude? I'm a US/AU dual citizen and I've visited America quite often over the last few years, and it feels like we hear about the shootings only very slightly less in Australia than in the US. Here they're still front page news, and my co-workers are all talking about them. Had some friends from San Diego and Houston over in the last few weeks and the commented on how safe Sydney feels, even in the grimy parts. They said that they had a need for situational awareness at all times in the US, but here it feels like it wasn't so necessary. At this point I'm certainly not looking at America as the safe haven of liberal democracy or freedom. I feel freer walking around the streets near public housing here than I do in the financial district in SF. But I guess in America you get to own guns with a high clip capacity, bump stocks, and get to post white nationalist manifestos on message boards? Cool.
- madamelic 7y ago
  How do you feel like "mental illness" argument holds up between AU and US? I think most people's fears are around unhinged homeless than random shooters.
  - tomlockwood 7y ago
    I feel like if America has a mental illness problem, surely it would be addressed by providing more mental health services perhaps cough universally to the populace somehow. But, it's all rhetoric. If claims there was a mental illness problem were in good faith, we'd see American action on mental health.
    - a3n 7y ago
      "Mental illness" is just a convenient way to dismiss any notion of doing anything about gun violence. It's misdirection. Because, as you point out, we're not going to actually do anything about mental illness. Indeed, half the Congress and all of the Administration is trying to reduce access to health care, which would include mental health care.
- umvi 7y ago
  > would take the same tack on reporting terrorist incidents. Wouldn't it make sense to say we shouldn't report on them, given that attitude? I had a muslim coworker recently self-radicalize with online ISIS videos and attempt to carry out a truck attack against national harbor. It didn't make it out of local news because the FBI nabbed him a few hours before the attack was to take place. I think that's a good thing. If the media blew it up, no doubt it would have inspired others to try the same.
  - Qworg 7y ago
    If the media published that the FBI was highly effective and stopped a terrorist before they could do anything useful? Why is that inspiring?
  - iron0013 7y ago
    doubt
- cyberferret 7y ago
  The biggest puzzle to me is how a lot of Americans I talk to that equate 2A with 'freedom'. I have seriously had conversations with some people who believe that we are _less_ free here in Australia that them in the US because we do not have the right to bear arms. I think that definition of 'freedom' has just become so conflated or twisted of late that it really needs to be decoupled from the overall culture and re-examined. Today I read tweets from pundits and politicians advocating for armed guards to be at every 'peaceful gathering' in order to ensure safety in the US. I grew up in an authoritarian S/E Asian country where there were policemen or soldiers on literally every street corner with an automatic weapon slung around their front and with one hand close to the trigger. This is the very antithesis of 'freedom' to me.
  - jlawson 7y ago
    Under what definition of freedom does having less right to defend yourself make you more free? I understand how you might see the tradeoff as worth it - some safety purchased at a cost of freedom. But expanding the list of things that you're not allowed to do doesn't seem like it could possibly be interpreted as expanding freedom. Same argument for drug or alcohol prohibition, religious restrictions, etc.
    - tomlockwood 7y ago
      You are correct, you'd definitely lose the freedom to own a gun that fires 10 rounds a second, to defend your home. In Australia you'd just have to make do with the freedom to own a bolt-action. On the other hand, A whole bunch of civilians in malls would gain the freedom to live. Freedom would expand.
      - jlawson 7y ago
        Three massive pieces of wrongness in this post. First, people in America can't own guns that fire '10 rounds a second' without a class 3 firearms license, which is very rare. Such guns are basically never used in mass shootings. Second, depending on who you need to defend your home from, you may want such a gun. For example, if government or government sanctioned groups are a threat. An example of this is the killings of white farmers in South Africa. Is not just about burglars, it's about gas chambers and political threats. Always has been. Finally, redefining safety as freedom is a truly absurd abuse of language which wipes out a critical distinction that has been heavily discussed for a long time. If this is what it takes for you to make your point make sense, your point doesn't make sense. Just admit it. You want more safety. You're willing to give up freedom (or rather, sacrifice the freedom of others) to get it. No need to play ridiculous semantic games to pretend there are no tradeoffs here.

tomlockwood 7y ago

I also wonder if Americans who think this is a problem with the media inspiring more shootings would take the same tack on reporting terrorist incidents. Wouldn't it make sense to say we shouldn't report on them, given that attitude? I'm a US/AU dual citizen and I've visited America quite often over the last few years, and it feels like we hear about the shootings only very slightly less in Australia than in the US. Here they're still front page news, and my co-workers are all talking about them. Had some friends from San Diego and Houston over in the last few weeks and the commented on how safe Sydney feels, even in the grimy parts. They said that they had a need for situational awareness at all times in the US, but here it feels like it wasn't so necessary. At this point I'm certainly not looking at America as the safe haven of liberal democracy or freedom. I feel freer walking around the streets near public housing here than I do in the financial district in SF. But I guess in America you get to own guns with a high clip capacity, bump stocks, and get to post white nationalist manifestos on message boards? Cool.

madamelic 7y ago
How do you feel like "mental illness" argument holds up between AU and US? I think most people's fears are around unhinged homeless than random shooters.
- tomlockwood 7y ago
  I feel like if America has a mental illness problem, surely it would be addressed by providing more mental health services perhaps cough universally to the populace somehow. But, it's all rhetoric. If claims there was a mental illness problem were in good faith, we'd see American action on mental health.
  - a3n 7y ago
    "Mental illness" is just a convenient way to dismiss any notion of doing anything about gun violence. It's misdirection. Because, as you point out, we're not going to actually do anything about mental illness. Indeed, half the Congress and all of the Administration is trying to reduce access to health care, which would include mental health care.
umvi 7y ago
> would take the same tack on reporting terrorist incidents. Wouldn't it make sense to say we shouldn't report on them, given that attitude? I had a muslim coworker recently self-radicalize with online ISIS videos and attempt to carry out a truck attack against national harbor. It didn't make it out of local news because the FBI nabbed him a few hours before the attack was to take place. I think that's a good thing. If the media blew it up, no doubt it would have inspired others to try the same.
- Qworg 7y ago
  If the media published that the FBI was highly effective and stopped a terrorist before they could do anything useful? Why is that inspiring?
- iron0013 7y ago
  doubt
cyberferret 7y ago
The biggest puzzle to me is how a lot of Americans I talk to that equate 2A with 'freedom'. I have seriously had conversations with some people who believe that we are _less_ free here in Australia that them in the US because we do not have the right to bear arms. I think that definition of 'freedom' has just become so conflated or twisted of late that it really needs to be decoupled from the overall culture and re-examined. Today I read tweets from pundits and politicians advocating for armed guards to be at every 'peaceful gathering' in order to ensure safety in the US. I grew up in an authoritarian S/E Asian country where there were policemen or soldiers on literally every street corner with an automatic weapon slung around their front and with one hand close to the trigger. This is the very antithesis of 'freedom' to me.
- jlawson 7y ago
  Under what definition of freedom does having less right to defend yourself make you more free? I understand how you might see the tradeoff as worth it - some safety purchased at a cost of freedom. But expanding the list of things that you're not allowed to do doesn't seem like it could possibly be interpreted as expanding freedom. Same argument for drug or alcohol prohibition, religious restrictions, etc.
  - tomlockwood 7y ago
    You are correct, you'd definitely lose the freedom to own a gun that fires 10 rounds a second, to defend your home. In Australia you'd just have to make do with the freedom to own a bolt-action. On the other hand, A whole bunch of civilians in malls would gain the freedom to live. Freedom would expand.
    - jlawson 7y ago
      Three massive pieces of wrongness in this post. First, people in America can't own guns that fire '10 rounds a second' without a class 3 firearms license, which is very rare. Such guns are basically never used in mass shootings. Second, depending on who you need to defend your home from, you may want such a gun. For example, if government or government sanctioned groups are a threat. An example of this is the killings of white farmers in South Africa. Is not just about burglars, it's about gas chambers and political threats. Always has been. Finally, redefining safety as freedom is a truly absurd abuse of language which wipes out a critical distinction that has been heavily discussed for a long time. If this is what it takes for you to make your point make sense, your point doesn't make sense. Just admit it. You want more safety. You're willing to give up freedom (or rather, sacrifice the freedom of others) to get it. No need to play ridiculous semantic games to pretend there are no tradeoffs here.