i don’t think people understand that people can ‘love’ you and not actually love you
like my grandmother ‘loved’ me, but she also was always trying to change me. she tried to take me away from my (catholic bisexual) mother. she made me wear dresses when i was there. she always tried to get me to go to church and was always asking me if i was dating a boy yet
i spent years feeling guilty that i wasn’t what she wanted me to be until my mom told me one day “she never bothered to know the real you”
and it’s true. any time i tried to show her something about myself, even cook for her, it would be dismissed, and a replacement would be offered. even northern food was somehow a sin.
she loved me what she thought i should be, she never loved me.
bc people who love you, they love you for all the stuff that makes you you. they never consider that it makes you inconvenient.
“It was true: the other mother loved her. But she loved Coraline as a miser loves money, or a dragon loves its gold.“
Loving someone like a prized possession is a very different thing from loving someone like a person you care about.
I once saw someone point out something I hadn’t really considered before- libraries are one of the only places that are warm and dry where you can stay for long periods of time if you have no money. If you’re someone with nowhere to go during the daytime, they provide a safe environment in which to keep a roof over your head for a while- and all while you can access information.
So yes. This.
It’s weird…libraries almost feel /wrong/ now. It’s like I walk in and think “This is great…where do I put my money?”
I used to work on a campus library and if you want someplace to put your money, so to speak, make sure you put books back in the designated areas. I know you think you’re being helpful by reshelving, but even if you pull something out to read a couple paragraphs just stick it in the basket for things you didn’t want. I don’t care if you know EXACTLY where you are. In academic libraries (at least in Texas) our funding was determined by how many books people looked at. So we got additional funding based on books not being reshelved. If there’s a designated shelf/basket for things you don’t want, stick things in it!
What @standbyyourmantis said about not reshelving is true for public libraries, too. Our funding is dictated largely by how ‘used’ we are, so we scan all the items that are laying about as In House Use. That, tied with Reference Count and Door Counter numbers (we have to manually put in the time we take for references) to prove we’re providing a needed service. We also have to count the number of people who come for our programs, which not only helps funding but shows that the programming/services are needed, as well. So, basically, if you want to feel like you’re making sure we’re getting paid and staying around, keep these in mind.
I didn’t know that’s why you’re not supposed to reshelf!
Wow! That’s astounding!
LIBRARIES!!!
I’ve lost how many times I get asked about how much it costs to get a library card. It’s free. Everything is free unless it’s late or you lose an item.
I’m not super educated on gun laws and the jazz especially since I’m Australian and have never even seen a gun in real life before lmfao, so I am genuinely asking (this is not sarcasm I want to know lol)
How come over here in Australia, gun control has worked wonders and there’s been exactly 0 mass shootings since the 1996 Port Arthur massacre (I read it wrong the first time whoops) (https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2018/03/13/gun-laws-stopped-mass-shootings-in-australia.html , In the 18 years up to and including the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, there were 13-gun homicides in which five or more people died, not including the perpetrator. In the 22 years since, there have been no such incidents.)
But in America even in states with strict gun laws there’s mass shooting happening every fucking month or so?
Also, to add on to that, why is it harder to completely ban guns over in the US than it is in Australia?
I’m assuming it’s because of the ammendments (again I’m not American and don’t know how those work, which is why I’m asking haha) and if so how do you think gun laws could be changed in a different way to prevent more mass shootings?
I’ve always wondered since Australia is like, a shining example of why completely eradicating guns do work. And also (some) cops have guns still, but there’s a lot of rules around how and when they can use them and obviously the rates of death by cop in AUS is a lot less than the US (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country look under Australia and then look under United States)
Again this isn’t an argument for anything, but 100% a genuine question.
He’s your best option for this, but I’ll provide some things.
First and foremost; mass shootings may as well be discounted when it comes to firearms crime. The main reason for this is the sheer disparity of fatalities.
Simply put; between 1967 and 2018 approximately 1216 people died in mass shootings (most typically though not necessarily that would also include the shooter) in the US. That’s an average of ~23.8 people per year. Compare that with the national firearm homicide statistic for 2015 which is
12,979. 12979/23.8 means that for everyone who dies in a mass shooting, 545 die due to non mass shooting homicide.
So, straight up, focusing on mass shootings just doesn’t really make sense. Whether someone agrees with gun control or not, its the wrong thing to look at if only because trying to protect people from mass shootings means that you’re spending less time protecting people from things that have a much bigger impact on them. The sheer disparity of numbers should, hopefully make that clear. I’m aware that this is not an argument against gun control itself, but I’m simply pointing out that ‘how do we stop mass shootings’ is fundamentally the wrong question to ask.
Second; the main issue with mass shootings is that we legitimately don’t know why they started happening. While we have to mess with the definition a bit, I consider the first modern mass shooter to be Brenda Spencer (since most previous ones were spree killings, group actions such as police against protestors, and one thing that was probably suicide by cop brought on by a previous murder). This was in 1979.
Problem is that weapons suitable for mass shootings have been available to the American public since the Henry rifle. In 1860. Or the Winchester rifle, first available in 1866. Semi-automatics have been available since before the first world war. Its not the ownership of firearms that can cause a large amount of damage that is the problem; we’ve had them for a very long time.
As for banning them; you run into two problems. The first is, like you guessed, the second amendment. While it has been agreed by the supreme court that it doesn’t violate the second to limit them a proper ban would require a constitutional amendment to be put in place. The second is that Australia is actually in a position to heavily minimize the illegal import of guns; since most of your coastline is not exactly suited to illegal landings, imports can be heavily limited. This is not the case with the united states; stopping illegal gun trafficking from Mexico is a pipe dream at best.
There’s also the huge demand for guns in the US; even if it was restricted to strictly illegal buys, there’s enough of a demand for cottage industries to spring up in every major city to produce and sell firearms. This, by the way, is also something that Australia is dealing with; back in 2004 there was an underground weapons factory in Melbourne producing illegal Owen Guns.
Ah, ok, thanks a heap. I didn’t even think of illegal imports. That’s interesting.
So it’s safe to assume that comparing Australia to America in this example isn’t going to help solve the problem, at least with mass shootings?
Are other gun related crimes not treated the same as mass shootings ?
You are correct that comparing the two doesn’t really help, simply because we have massively different situations and problems.
I’m not sure what you mean with ‘treated the same’.
Non-mass shooting gun crimes don’t nearly get as much media coverage as mass shootings. They’ll probably hit the local news before getting swept under the rug or go viral if it’s police related.
A gun crime (a non-fatal, non-police, non-mass shooting) isn’t particularly newsworthy at a national level.
For example, Oakland is one of the cities near me that has frequent gun crimes, but I never see the crimes reported as actively as the others–most of the time, local gun crimes are just another blip on the “most important news story” radar.
Ignoring any of the gun control arguments. The meme is obvious bullshit.
Wikipedia puts the US in at #90 with a murder rate of 5.35 per hundred thousand.
The US state with the lowest murder rate is New Hampshire, with a murder rate of 1 per hundred thousand. Even with that extreme degree of cherry picking, the US would still be #183 by Wiki stats, worse than Australia.
As for gun control.
“I’ve always wondered since Australia is like, a shining example of why completely eradicating guns do work.”
Australia has more registered firearms now than prior to the Firearms Act (1996).
Even the most cursory research would let you know that firearms are still legal in Australia.
Even Japan hasn’t completely eradicated guns.
“ And also (some) cops have guns still …”
Most cops still have guns. The only times they don’t are when they seperate the use of pistols and tasers, and some positions such as in the watch house and guarding government buildings (not actually cops).
“
How come over here in Australia, gun control has worked wonders and there’s been exactly 0 mass shootings since the 1996 Port Arthur massacre …“
There have also been zero mass shootings in New Zealand in the same time period, despite still allowing semi-automatic firearms. That’s the problem with a small sample size…
And by US definitions, there have been six mass shootings in Australia during that time period. Australia excludes murder suicides involving entire families because we define mass shootings as “spree killings” not simply when multiple people are shot.
There have also been attempted mass shootings related to terrorism. And the Monash University shooting that was ended by people present disarming and subduing the shooter (2 dead).
Me as a kid: There’s no way Jessie and James are in their twenties! People have their shit together by then.
Me now: Wow okay yeah these broke disasters drowning in debt and picking up part-time gigs to supplement the meager pay from their crap job working for an evil boss are ONE THOUSAND PERCENTin their twenties, huh.
They’re 15 and 16 last time I checked
Jessie and James have been confirmed 25 in the anime since the 2nd movie (and before that if we’re looking at radio dramas)
…how come they aged and ash didn’t?
stress from being poor
Slightly unrelated but I watched Bridget Jones Diary recently and had a verry similar reaction – “WTF?! There’s no way a 33 year old can act like this! By 33 people usually have enough worldly experience and wisdom to not pursue sex crazed jerks, wear see through tops at the office, or make stupid speeches in front of published authors!!”
…I hope that 10 years from now I don’t rewatch the movie again and go “yes, peak 30s experience totally relatable” or at least don’t run into people who act like that at 30.
Site Title 