Hacker News Reader

Comment by Fargoan | Hacker News Reader

I don't know if this is real, but I saw something on Reddit about how the Buffalo and Uvalde shooters were both in the same Discord and on a couple of chan sites called frenschan and 94chan. I think the problem isn't a particular communication platform but a social network that encourages racism and murder. We know from Snowden that the US government has software for mapping out and tracking social networks. Are they doing this in cases like these mass murders? If not, why?

View on HN

Are dragnets really the best we can do? Maybe we don't need more guns than people. So when mental illness becomes violent it's blast radius is less destructive.

Preface: I agree with you.

I'd be really curious to see an "aging report" for firearms that are used/involved in mass-shooting incidents -- I roughly know the answer for the most recent and most newsworthy (read: horrific) incidents. I'd just like to see more data on the topic, specifically 'time from manufacture to use as a murder weapon', to better understand exactly how much potential impact there is.

I'm aware private sales exist, and the implication that mentally ill people may turn to private sales, but I'd be curious to see the data on this nonetheless.

I'd similarly be curious to see a breakdown/data on "source" of weapons used in incidents like this (and even on attempted/homicides, domestic cases, etc), as well as an aging report -- to better understand how much "impact potential" legislation actually has.

While I do support legislation, I'd also like to better understand how impactful it could be and how quickly we might see an impact; I'm also aware of semi-mixed efficacy from (some) prior legislation (state & federal), though I'm personally still in favor of additional legislation, even if only because my 'gut' says it would be a net positive impact.

Consider also that mental illness might not be so rare or permanent. And if we are all capable of horrendous acts given certain life circumstances then the most effective and practical strategy may be outlawing private gun ownership.

Or at least until we can predict mental breakdows and crimes of passion.

> Are dragnets really the best we can do? Maybe we don't need more guns than people. So when mental illness becomes violent it's blast radius is less destructive.

We need to attack this problem from all angles. That includes both gun safety laws and media safety laws. The mentally ill should not be regularly be reminded of the idea that attacking schoolchildren is something they can do.

The safest gun is the one that doesn't exist. We don't have to accept a culture saturated with guns.

That's a slogan, not a solution. You talk like that would stop school attacks, when it would not. There have been many mass-casually school attacks with knives.

If we really want to solve this problem, strict and comprehensive media safety laws will need to be part of the solution.

What are the stats on mass knife attacks? Doubtful they cause as much death as shootings.

If guns are illegal it's far easier to rid the country of them instead of a complex mesh of laws that vary by state, county, city, township. Fewer guns certainly makes accidents, impulsive suicide and manslaughter much less likely.

If there are multiple shooters are similar communications groups where there is also likely police agents, why aren’t we assuming complicity?

Given that it's already known that the FBI had both shooters on their radar, combined with the behavior of those cops in Texas, it's kind of hard not to land on complicity, to be honest.

More incidents = more mandate = more budget.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com