Language language! And keep the personal attacks out if you want to sound credible. So, I've already directly quoted you to you before, but "it's the guns always has been," does seem to mean that it's the guns, yeah? Like if the guns went away then the violence would magically evaporate! We *definitely* wouldn't have poison gas attacks like Japan or serial knife murder like both Japan and England.

It's the guns, but it's not the guns fault? Oh, please do explain, since I'm so illiterate. I'd like to see the mental gymnastics there.

"But make no mistake, guns are the problem, always have been." This wasn't you? It's hard to gaslight when it's in print.

An inanimate object (that has been in daily use for hundreds of years) is controlling people to go out and commit acts of violence? How about the problem being society deciding that it was a good idea to raise children without fathers? And personal attacks always indicate that someone is losing an argument.

Look at the manifestos that the shooters put out. And it's the same argument that you're putting out.

All mass shootings have been committed by Democrats...does that mean banning all Democrats from owning guns would stop mass shootings? Obviously not.

Except it isn't, it's illegal for them to have one.

The only reason it "worked" was because there are easier ways to get alternative drugs. Go through history, look at all weapon bans and you'll see two things that are always constant. 1, they were promoted as being for the People's benefit, and 2, they always were about stripping the people of control or means to resist oppression. If you treat the symptoms and not the cause (lack of emotional support and stability) then you can't get rid of the symptoms. Both Japan and England are facing epidemic levels of fatal stabbings. The violence won't go away until the source is taken care of. Don't try to push your ideology on others if your own idea of things is screwed up enough to think that the War on Drugs was a good idea.

Racism exists and you're racist. Only black people use cocaine? Putting people in prison for drug use works? The War on Drugs was a good idea? Really? Ban all guns and watch firefights break out all across America. Just like happened with the War on Drugs, do you think people are going to be going quietly? *Especially* because both sides are going to make it an idiological fight. Use common sense.

Racist and shallow argument

Replaced by oxycodone and krokodil. Sideways movement

Honestly, I'm always a skeptic on government intervention, so I see that as a last resort, a kind of Hail Mary effort that's doomed to failure. It would be better to work on building better social interconnect, more community based activity. The violence is caused by a feeling of lack of emotional support or the idea that no one cares for or about the individual. I believe that the only way to solve the problem is by removing the isolation and providing emotional support to the individual by other individuals. One school that was experiencing extreme levels of bullying and criminal behavior from their students organized a group of around 60 fathers to come into the school in shifts to act as mentors and emotional outlets for the students. Negative behavior dropped almost immediately. I don't think that there is one solution to this issue, and each community will have to work out what best fits their needs, because this is a problem that individuals are facing, not institutions. Trying to ban or restrict the outcome rather than fixing the source is like trying to grab the wrong end of a baseball bat. Not only will it not work, but it will only result in more problems.

I didn't say anything about "abnormal" family or otherwise, just that if young teens don't have a father figure in their lives that it's harmful and seems to have a connection to school shootings. Also, socioeconomic factors don't seem to have a connection to mass shootings, because not all of the shooters have been from struggling households. It seems that it's more lack of emotional support from those around them.

We should be addressing the root cause of the problem. Why are teens suddenly choosing to commit extremely violent acts? I'm in education, so this is a topic that is very important to me, not only because I might be shot, but because I want to help these kids. All of the shooters have come from single parent households, with no father figure in their lives. (The one exception was an emotionally unavailable stepfather) So let's start by trying to understand the connection between not having a father and the mental state leading to mass murder.

Why don't we try the same thing that we did with drugs? It seems to really be working.

No, I'm saying that they (and most social media) are trying to claim the legal benefits of both without the legal limitations that each have. They're absolutely a public forum (and thus not allowed to censor speech) but trying to behave as if they have the legal right to.

Reddit is trying to thread the legal line between a forum and a publication. Forums can't be sued for anything said on them, but they also can't control anything either. Publications can control discussions, but can also be sued for anything said on them. Right now the government isn't doing anything legally about it (presumably because it's useful) but it's technically illegal for Reddit to sensor people.