this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
7 points (76.9% liked)

Criminal Justice and Crime

81 readers
3 users here now

This is a Lemmy.World community for discussions of Criminal Justice and crime.

Rules:

  1. This is a community about criminal justice. Posts should relate to criminal justice, crime, policing, courts and litigation, and other related topics. Posts about crime should be about a noteworthy crime, not "run of the mill" crimes.

  2. Be civil. You do not need to support criminal justice reform to participate in this community and civil discussions are encouraged.

  3. Posts should be news, discussions, or images related to criminal justice. Memes and humor are allowed but should not be excessively posted.

  4. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Utilizing such language in your username will also result in a ban.

  5. Follow site-wide rules.

founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grue 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Wow, you're completely missing my point. I'm not saying that the experts' claims are incorrect in a narrow sense; I'm saying that they fail to trace the chain of causes all the way to its beginning.

Take these parts, for instance:

Researchers have identified several circumstances shared by people who commit mass violence. They are almost (but not always) men, many of whom have suffered from some form of early childhood trauma or abuse. Most are suicidal.

Among the most important is a history of domestic violence. In 2021, researchers found that a majority of mass shootings were domestic violence-related. “A substantial fraction of mass shootings are not these killings of strangers in public places, but they occur in ongoing domestic disputes,” says Nagin.

I'm not disputing that mass shooters tend to have suffered trauma due to exposure to domestic abuse. What I'm asking is, what strategies are the researchers suggesting to prevent the domestic abuse before it happens? The answer appears to be fuck-all!

Instead, the experts are suggesting we cruelly let the abuse happen, identity the small subset of victims who decide to retaliate, and only then give them any scrap of help.

And that cruelty is what you're defending with your bullshit fallacies. You should be ashamed of yourself!

[–] NateNate60 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Well, that question is easy to answer.

That's because the guy in the article isn't an expert in domestic violence. He's not proposing that nothing be done, he's showing restraint by not talking out of his ass about a subject he's not an expert in.

You ask the statistics guy what solution he's got for the problem and he's going to give you a statistics answer. And maybe you can use that answer to ask other experts follow-up questions, but that's beyond the scope of your conversation with this particular person.

[–] grue 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

But it sure as Hell is within the scope of an article that purports to consult with multiple experts to arrive at solutions to the problem. So where the fuck is the paragraph about what the DV expert had to say? It isn't there, and that's what I've been complaining about this whole damn time!

The article is shit and deserves to be downvoted because -- as you have just effectively admitted -- it fails to even cite the right experts in the first place. Which means you trying to paint me as wrong for disregarding experts that don't even exist in the article is, again, complete and utter bullshit. Q-E-fucking-D.

[–] NateNate60 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Disagree. Not every article has to cover absolutely everything.

It's like talking about problems with drug addiction. There are two facets:

  1. How to detect people who are at high risk of addiction or already addicted and refer them to the right treatment resources
  2. How to prevent the societal issues that drive people to addiction in the first place

You do not need to present a solution to both in order to present a good solution to 1.

[–] grue 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Even if that's true -- and I'm not conceding that point -- that's not the argument you've been making. Instead, you started off this whole thing by trying to ridicule me for strawman nonsense you made up, and haven't even apologized yet. I'm really sick and tired of your blatant bad faith.

[–] NateNate60 0 points 2 months ago