>

Wow, you’re right. Guess it’s a suicide pact.
And the only ones who fall for it are uneducated republicans. >

And the corporate media. >

nah corporate media knows very well. They only prioritize ratings. nothing more nothing less. >

Rupert Murdoch would disagree >

honest media doesn't generate wild ratings like bullshit media does. If anything, Murdoch knows this more than anyone. >

I’m not sure what the point you are trying to make is. 
I would definitely argue that many of the actors within corporate media believe their own bullshit, but it’s hard to know what they’ve been coached to say by their producers and what is actually genuine reaction to an event (it’s probably mostly comes from production meetings). 
I think the “corporate media” such as it exists (lumping in the big 3, Fox, CNN, and yea, even msnbc) often fail at framing issues in ways that actually communicate the stakes, taking low effort approaches and arguments to topics so they don’t have to pay/intern a ton of researchers so their producers fully understand issues before they go on air. The fact that it’s cheaper to recycle lazy arguments has more to do with keeping costs low than chasing some outdated Nielsen model.
As for Fox, they make shit up out of nowhere to fuel a rage machine. It pulls in people that hate watch and people that like watch, and this model works all over the globe. They don’t chase the news so much as define it (green m&m not sexy enough? Xbox too woke?) and the rest of the corporate system try’s to catch up and respond as if it makes any difference. 
What I’m trying to say is that there is a lot of money in keeping the same arguments going and just making shit up. You could argue that John Oliver does well with a show that present facts in an interesting way, but I guarantee his show would be nowhere near profitable enough to slot into CNN, and it has more to do with having a paid research team than chasing ratings. CNN wishes their videos got watched as much online as Oliver’s did. They just know they wouldn’t make as much producing similar content.
Long way of saying that mainstream debate on just about any topic is fucked beyond recognition if you get all of your info from cable news, which many do. >

None of that disagrees with 'they chase ratings/profits' like the other person said though. If anything you're agreeing and adding details... >

Maybe it’s poorly articulated, because I added the profits motivator to point out it isn’t just about ratings, which is what the previous commenter suggested. 
I think we probably all agree on large parts of what the problem is, so I’m not really saying they’re wrong so much as trying to have a discussion. >

Man, those Trumps have the most dismissive, "fuck you, what are you gonna do about it" shrugs down perfectly. >

What they don’t realize is there’s alot the general public can do about it, it’s just a matter of how much patience is left in the tank. >

Conservatives are using identity politics in the wake of the California killings to divert attention from a universal fact: All of these tragedies are fueled by the easy access to guns. >

California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the state. They. Don’t. Work. 
Half of these “mass shootings” are gang related violence. The problem isn’t gun owners that follow the law, it’s criminals. They won’t willow the law, so stop punishing those that do by encroaching more and more on our rights. >


Half of these “mass shootings” are gang related violence.

So if gangs are the shooters it doesn't count as a mass shooting in your mind?  Just trying to figure out what the quotes are for.  The Downtown Sacramento shooting was gang violence and 3 innocent women died with no affiliation to gangs.  Guess they don't count though? >

The only people who can fix this are "responsible gun owners". They're the ones that need to feel the pain. Their god damn hobby murders children every fucking day and they don't do fucking shit about it. Time to bring the pain to the "responsible" people and force them to deal with it. >

We should raise the tax on ammo to 200%. Make it cost prohibitive. Make it so refilling your ammo requires a permit and $250,000 in liquid assets to buy the components. Close all gun show loopholes and disallow buying firearms on credit. 
These numbers could be fudged with, but making it hyper expensive to shoot a gun would be start. >

So poor people can’t defend themselves and lose access to an enumerated right in the constitution. I >

Guns are all over impoverished communities but somehow they've never made them any safer. >

The individual, not the community. Are you ok telling a single mom in a poor area that she can’t have a gun to defend herself because there are too many guns in the gang bangers hands? >

Um, I've been a single mom (all of 5'2") in a poor area and never thought carrying a gun would keep me safe. There is FAR more risk (for the children too) in just owning that gun. This whole
"women have to carry guns because otherwise they'll become victims!1!" line that's appeared in the last couple of years as a talking point is disingenuous and I'll be honest, it's condescending as fuck when men tell women how they think the women should live our lives and keep ourselves safe. We're well aware of the dangers, we know guns are available, yet we know better than to think they're the answer. >

Yeah, baby! Gotta pump those numbers UP! Get every woman packing, fuck yeah! Women can't be safe from men with guns unless they carry too! Hell yeah, this is gonna be AWESOME. Guns for everyone! Everyone knows the 410,000,000 guns already in the country isn't enough, those are goddamned rookie numbers! Maybe with a BILLION guns we'll finally be safe from each other! >

The problem with analyzing the issue this way is it overlooks a huge problem and that is, it’s not just republicans or the ‘right’ doing this. It’s ALL GUN NUTS regardless of political affiliation.  (I am NOT saying gun owners, just the extreme gun-nuts) They are right in what they are saying about the distractions’ and general disingenuous of what is being said, but every one of these that they ascribe to ‘republicans’ is also done by ‘democrat’ or liberal gun-nuts too. Yes when it come to politicians and public figures it is mostly the right that is doing this, but on the internet, social media, here on reddit, or really anywhere in life, liberal gun-nuts do all of this too. It’s gun-nuts that are the problem, not just right-wing ones. 
Because of this the 'gun debate’ is one of the most disingenuous ones from the extreme gun-nut side ever, liberal or conservative. They are not arguing in good faith and mostly talk in ‘tactics’. There is no principles, consistency or real solutions behind what hey say, because they only thing they care about is protecting an extreme more guns position at all cost. 
You can’t reason a person out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into and gun-nuts did not reason themselves into their love of guns. For a variety of reasons (fear, tradition, they think it’s cool, et.) 'guns' are a part of gun-nuts personal identity, liberal or conservative. There is no compromise with them, liberal or conservative, because they won't 'compromise' who they think they are, and they are part 'guns'. They are ‘good’ in their minds so guns are good by definition. So in the end the reality is they do not care one bit about who else dies as long as their identity stays righteous and unassailed in their minds.
This is the problem we face. A too large chunk of Americans liberal or conservative just don't care about others dying because ‘who they are’ is built around the gun used in those deaths. >

Step one: Politicize the fuck out of it.
Step two: Accuse the Dems of "politicizing the shooting"
Step three: Do nothing to try to prevent it from happening again. >

Are you kidding? They don’t even notice. They’ll just go back to protesting drag queens reading books at the library rather than condemning carjackers sticking a gun in some grandmas face. >

I think you'll find that every 2nd amendment supporter is against the carjacker, and would prefer that grandma have a pistol in her purse. >

If your relatives can't be trusted with their own defense, that's on them.  But to consider it insane that people defend themselves when nobody else will do it is just wrong.  My mom is nearly 70 and carries a pistol.  My dad is the same age and still hunts.  I don't think you've ever considered that some people are in better shape than others. >

Yes.  That's the world that we live in.  If you can't defend yourself then you're open to predation.  What is the point that you're trying to make here?  That getting rid of guns would make everyone get along?  Ever look up medieval homicide rates? >

You're describing a state of nature not modern society.  Moving beyond that is what allows private property ownership and business commerce.  If you have to spend all your time defending your property and assets you can't engage in your earning activities. >


You're describing a state of nature not modern society.

No, it's reality.  The date is irrelevant.  A robbery takes, on average, less than one minute.  In that time, there is no chance of you calling police and waiting for them to arrive.  That doesn't mean that every waking moment must be spent on self defense, but in the moment when self defense is necessary, you're entirely alone.  As the old saying goes...  When seconds matter, police are minutes away. >

I find that people who feel this way, that think they are prey just waiting to be pounced, usually don't live in the places where they imagine this happens.  I've lived in and around large cities for the last half century.  I've lived in the US and in countries far less developed.  And I've never experienced a situation that I felt could be improved by having a weapon on me.  There are better ways of not being a victim. >

You've never been robbed.  Good for you.  Now tell that to the tens of thousands of people who are victims of armed robbery each year.  Your "it has never happened to me so it doesn't really happen" argument is worthless.  And, for the record, I live in a major city as well.  I'd love to hear your theories about how not to be a victim, though.  If someone did pull out a gun and try to rob you, how would you respond in a way that prevents you from being a victim? >

Nothing will ever change re: gun laws until it affects one of the GOP reps or their family/friends. >

The congressional baseball team got shot up and it didn’t change anything.