Countdown to the next mass shooting

[Dill]

(11-09-2017, 10:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, gimme that rope baby, I need to pull a Caradine over here.
Good lord, and you accuse me of being obtuse.  Your inane point is that a bunch of deaths all in one event would spur the same kind of response, or at least make the analogy more appropriate.  My response is that people are well aware of the deaths related the to drug trade and yet it does nothing to curb the use of drugs.  What you're essentially saying is that without a mass death incident people don't care and the media doesn't report.  My counter is that people are aware and don't care enough to change.  The only people who clamour for gun control after a mass shooting are people who wanted gun control before the mass shooting.  Hence your analogy was flawed from the beginning.  Keep giving me that rope boy, I'm nearly there.

Yes, I addressed this above, your analogy is flawed.  

The words in caps nearly gave me enough rope, nearly.  I posited that this would have zero affect on people as the number of deaths is already well known and, as I stated, people like to get high.  I still posit this, lack of caps and all.

I can only guess that you lack the intellectual capacity to process the point being made.  Maybe you gave yourself too much rope?

So I say that there is plenty of outrage in response to the large number of alcohol related deaths/problems in the US, but these are not sufficiently aggregated in one spot to provoke the media response mass shootings do. And further, if they were so concentrated, we could expect the same level of media attention mas shootings get.

Someone who followed my argument and wanted to refute it would demonstrate 1) that there isn’t plenty of dis-aggregated outrage in response to alcohol-related deaths/problems.  (E.g., perhaps he could prove that when a drunk driver kills innocent people, the families of those people aren't outraged or don’t care because “people like to get drunk/high.”)

And 2) offer a credible counter-hypothetical to explain why a lot of alcohol-related deaths happening all at once, and with the regularity of mass shootings, would not trigger a media response comparable to those of mass shootings. If one drunk driver killed 50 people in 15 minutes in March and another killed 26, all children, in May, there would be only local coverage?

But your first off the wall response was the charge that all this outrage was “prohibition” (the Volstead Act, repealed in 1933?) and an “unmitigated disaster.” And my response is still LOL WHAT?????  

Then you drop in your claim people still buy illegal drugs, even though the drug trade involves homicides.  Homicides don’t stop the buyers. No one is disputing that claim. So in your mind, advantage SSF.  Somehow. But outside your mind, others want to know-- how does people continuing to buy illegal drugs refute a claim that there is plenty of outrage over alcohol abuse that is distributed around the US rather than concentrated in major incidents?

Then with the extra rope I gave you, you substituted my claim regarding plenty of outrage for a claim that there is no outrage. “What you're essentially saying is that without a mass death incident people don't care and the media doesn't report.”  Your “counter” to this claim I did not make is something like Neb’s original claim: “that people are aware and don't care enough to change.” 

Then comes the final, stupendous leap--“Hence,” somehow, my “analogy was flawed from the beginning” because  “The only people who clamour for gun control after a mass shooting are people who wanted gun control before the mass shooting.” That means people don’t care about alcohol-related problems? That national media would show no interest in a succession of alcohol-related mass death events?

The best I can make of this fog is that you are inserting unstated and unwarranted assumptions between my statements and your conclusions, because you certainly cannot reach those conclusions from what has so far been offered. The other possibility is you are simply responding to something that wasn’t stated; you are “countering” a claim that isn't there.