[graphime]

> Are there going to be bans on things that could be used to aid in school shootings next?

No.

Because us Americans don’t care about school shootings.

I’d rather the government invest in S&P500 going higher.

You overestimate how many people actually care about mass shootings in America.

[blitzar]

Maybe we can incorporate the children one by one in delaware and then people will care.

On the plus side they will also then qualify for billions in government subsidies.

[nish__]

Won't matter if they're not publicly traded.

[icandoit]

We could sell options on their future incomes, or taxes. An idea worth exploring. How can we encourage investment in future generations?

[ElFitz]

Isn't that what we call public debt?

[rocketpastsix]

I think you underestimate how many people actually care about mass shootings.

[tokioyoyo]

Caring with no significant action in prevention doesn’t really signal caring. Sure, it sucks, headlines get printed for a couple of months, then people forget and move on.

To put it in the most disrespectful and sad way, it looks like more people have been on the streets for Knicks games than most (any?) school shootings of the past decades.

[SecretDreams]

It's just harder to get the average joe charged up to fight a battle with anything meaningful on the line. Americans are used to living relatively cushy lives where they don't sacrifice their QOL to make the lives of their countrymen better. The closest thing to that are people in the military, and it's probably been a while since the US military is improving QOL, on average.

People will continue to be complacent on multiple fronts until it absolutely comes to a violent boil. I don't really see half measures or peaceful protests changing anything. And maybe I'm pessimistic, but I think the upcoming elections will either not change enough or be strongly manipulated to maintain the status quo.

[tokioyoyo]

>harder to get the average joe charged up to fight a battle with anything meaningful on the line

Doesn't this imply that on average people just don't care? So, school shooting preventions are just way down in the list of "things I care about", when you have "cushy lives where nobody wants to sacrifice their QOL".

[SecretDreams]

It means they don't care enough to meaningfully make sacrifices for change. To deal with school shootings is to change the constitution. The American constitution is basically wired for school shootings. To change the constitution is basically a civil war.

Things aren't binary. Many people care deeply about school shootings. But they don't have the means or power to organize to stop them and, individually, they are powerless.

[tokioyoyo]

They’re not binary, but when an issue persists for decades, over the course of multiple administrations, and political landscape… it shows either the country is incompetent in terms of solving an issue, or the issue is not a priority.

I wholeheartedly believe US can solve issues when it’s an important one. And thus, I think, for an average American it’s not an issue.

Decades is a very long timeframe. Countries have achieved more in shorter periods.

[nish__]

Enforcing the global use of the petro dollar is what keeps Americans living cushy lives so be careful disrespecting the military personel.

[SecretDreams]

My post was not disrespectful. It was matter of fact. And if the Petro Dollar only persists by use of force or perceived force, it's probably not a sustainable system for humanity. So hopefully we can go back to a soft power maintained Petro Dollar?

[dylan604]

I think your assumption of lack of caring is misplaced. The citizens clearly care, but have no power to do anything about it. Those in power are the ones that do not care or are paid not to care.

[Jcowell]

The author said nothing of the people but of the government itself. 12 years ago, elementary school children were slaughtered and even that wasn’t enough to ban guns.

[andrew_lettuce]

Thoughts and prayers doesn't count as truly caring

[graphime]

> I think you underestimate how many people actually care about mass shootings.

Less than 1% of the population, that’s for sure.

You remember the last protest about school shootings? Neither do I.

[throwaway-11-1]

I get what you’re saying but in the last 20 years can you think of any mass protest that accomplished anything substantial? I don’t really blame people for giving up on it as a tool for change. TBH only truly effective one I can think of would be Jan 6

[Topfi]

I can, just not in the US [0]. I always presumed this is linked to the health care being provided by employers rather than having a more robust safety net that allows for civil disobedience without having to fear existential risks. However, I also can’t forget that the French have their safety net not as a God given right, but because they fought for it via (often not just civil) protest. Reference also the statements MLK JR made concerning the willingness of white moderates to engage in actually effective disobedience, even when their financial situation allows for such.

[0] https://thenonviolenceproject.wisc.edu/2023/06/02/recent-pro...

[peyton]

There are more people not on employer-provided health insurance in the US than exist in France. How does your presumption work given that fact?

[Topfi]

I just checked and it's 54% in the US [0] vs 0% in France (cause basic public healthcare isn't tied to employment). So, unless you are referring to absolute numbers (not very helpful when comparing countries of different sizes), I'm not sure what you are referring to.

I will admit that my purely personal thesis on this front goes a bit beyond healthcare. I feel that a robust safety net, iron clad right to protest and a large, at least reasonably financially stable (meaning no existential financial fears for at least the majority of citizenry, i.e. above roughly 60% middle class for a given economy) are needed to allow for protests in such a manner that the citizenry are both capable, willing and informed sufficiently to protect their own interests and democracy as a whole. Having the right and ability to protests is needed, just as much as being comfortable enough to have the time to actually stay politically engaged (consistent financial strain being a reasonable cause for why one doesn't stay informed in my book). France or my home country of Austria (imperfect countries like any other, I will (un)happily admit) on that front are in the 65%-75% range, whereas the US appears to barely get above 50% purely by income along with higher health care costs in general and employer linked plans for as stated above the majority, so these are somewhat interlinked in my view.

Same reason, albeit less extreme, why in war-torn countries, long standing brutal dictatorships and the like, the citizenry rarely is able to create any proper action agains their oppressors, not because they are accepting of the status quo, weak, or anything of the sort, but because when one is starving and trying to help their family unit survive, even beyond the risk that action can pose, their often isn't any time to actually consider it. "A republic, if you can keep it", in my opinion is a high demand from the public. They need to have the tools, rights and resources to actively defend it. Not saying France is perfect here, but I will say that it is easy to just raise our finger at the US populous without considering the whole picture.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/portion-insured-americans-w...

[throw__away7391]

Well they happen in schools and children don’t vote. If this had been a wave of senior center shootings, something would have been done a long, long time ago.

[olyjohn]

This is not a good argument. Children tend to have parents who can vote.

[throw__away7391]

I see what you're saying, but I don't agree that it works this way. Parents' concerns for their children are far more self-serving than most parents claim. Consider that every "for the children" political agenda ever has nakedly ulterior motives--name one truly pro-child policy where children are directly prioritized at the expense of their parents? Consider the way that school schedules are oriented around their parents' convenience in spite of decades of studies showing the harmful health effects they have. During COVID we saw dramatic efforts to protect the elderly coupled with a push to reopen schools by parents tired of having to take care of them all day. Whatever you think of the restrictions one way or another, the prioritization of elderly was apparent throughout. These are the same parents who have repeated voted benefits for themselves at the direct expense of their children, saddling them with trillions of dollars of debt to support their own present consumption. I promise you, if seniors were regularly being gunned down like this they would have found a solution already.

[codingdave]

Because it has moved way beyond protests. Everyone agrees that school shootings are bad. Legislation has been passed. Policies have changed. Schools have changed their security tactics. There have been years and years of meetings across the country with school administrators and boards talking about how to improve safety and navigate these issues, and then the schools themselves implementing new practices.

If you are looking around and saying that because people aren't waving sign on street corners, then nobody cares, then you have utterly missed a couple decades of dedicated efforts by many people working around these issues.

The fact that shootings still happen is tragic. But it is not because people are just shrugging and saying they don't care.

[terabytest]

I recommend revisiting this comment when you have a son or daughter.

[satvikpendem]

Hate to say it but you're right. If people cared, they'd actually do something about it.

[shimman]

People are doing something, the issue with you two's extremely poor thinking is that lack of inaction means no one cares. What it actually represents is the massive growing disparity between the political class and average Americans.

There is >70% public support universal background checks for all firearm transactions, safe storage laws, and crisis intervention. Just the same that there is also large public support for things like public jobs programs, medicare for all, universal childcare, or free university; there is a very real obstacle that the political class in this country are adamant about stopping all progress towards better lives and not strictly caring that the elites extract more wealth or corporations get more welfare.

[tokioyoyo]

I'm very sorry, but I've heard that "there's large public support for X, Y, Z" for decades. If there's no real action in achieving such things, my assumption is people don't actually care about it.

Personally, when I "care about something", I try to act on it. My list is not long, and I'm very grateful that I don't have to spend a single minute of my life to think about school shootings.

[Avicebron]

You clearly missed the part about the divide between the political class and everyone else.

Most people in the US are just trying to pay rent and maybe one day save up for a house by the time they are 40-50.

If you don't see this you are either 1) making enough money you are part of the problem 2) don't actually live in the US so have a completely unmoored understanding of reality on the ground here

[tokioyoyo]

I obviously don’t live in the US. My entire point was that people say that care about school shootings and etc., but unless they do anything about it, those are just words.

Given the voting record of the majority of the population, I tend to believe that an average American cares more about SPX. Which, honestly, is fine by me. Every nation and culture is different, freedom and etc. etc.. But it would be hard to convince me that an average citizen cares about it, because, once again, nothing has changed in decades.

For the record, I have nothing against Americans, you guys are a lovely bunch. But it is what it is.

[shimman]

We literally can't do anything dude, what are you advocating for? That we have an armed rebellion to legislate the people's laws under a workers tribunal?

I'm really curious what country you live in because it's one that's clearly not a democracy. Not saying it as an insult either, but surely even in countries run by authoritarians there is an understanding that leadership is sometimes completely divorced from the people?

I also personally have a hard time blaming voters for anything, in America we have two corporate powers that have been neglecting the material needs of workers for nearly 40 years now; when you have two corporate parties power tends to be unstable for any meaningful legislation which tends to only benefit the elites + corporations whereas workers require constant legislation to help them and guide the country to benefit them.

When you see very little material outcomes you will vote for more extreme candidates. I honestly believe this is the real lesson how fascism can flourish, and I think this is something that can easily be predicted with extreme accuracy too. You look at the Weimar Republic, it was one of the most advanced and democratic governments on Earth; yet it failed to stop the threat of Nazis, mostly due to the ineptitude of politicians that also rejected the material needs of a nation.

I know this is a huge tangent but I think it's useful to write, because I'm really curios on your upbringing. I'd think understanding power, corruption, and out of touch governments to be universal human experiences but maybe not. D:

[vntok]

Indeed, the more accurate way to say it is that people in the US don't care enough about mass school shootings to do something about it besides thought and prayers.

[ndiddy]

If you're not American, one thing that you have to keep in mind whenever you hear "there's large public support in the US for [insert vaguely left-wing thing here] but nothing gets done about it" is that the US's system of government is really only vaguely a democracy. It gives a disproportionate amount of power to conservative rural voters at the expense of everybody else.

This is exemplified in the Senate, which is the least representative legislative body of any democracy I am aware of. Each state gets 2 votes regardless of population, so Wyoming (population ~550,000) is given the same amount of votes as California (population ~39,000,000). Any remotely controversial piece of legislation needs to pass the Senate with a 60% majority. This means that 21 Republican states making up ~20% of the population can block any bill they don't want to pass. Senators are also elected for 6 year terms, which limits how accountable they are to their constituents.

If a bill gets past the Senate, it makes its way to the president, who has veto power over all legislation. The president is elected by electors selected by the states rather than individual voters, and the number of electors is not fairly apportioned either. For example, there are ~728,000 people per elector in California, but ~196,000 people per elector in Wyoming.

In effect, this means that public opinion has essentially no impact on the legislation the US government passes. A 2014 Princeton study ( https://archive.org/details/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_th... ) found that "When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."

If you're interested in why the system was designed this way, I highly recommend the book "The Framers' Coup" by Michael Klarman.