Ten oz

True but the percentage as an indicator of those who are a combination of being school age, have access to the firearm in their home, owning tactical accessories, is known to feel disenfranchised, is on anti depressants, sympathizes with hate groups, and so on would drive the number up. A very small percentage of people with space heaters burn their homes down yet every winter people are still asked to be aware of the associated risks of space heaters. It seems to me that Guns being such a charged political issue prevents it from the standard level of open risk assessment we see among other things that kill people. I can causally mention to a parent that laundry detergent capsules can be hazardous to have around the house far more easily that I can broach the issue of having a gun around the house. Many people are reflexively defensive when it comes to Guns. It isn't healthy for dialog. I believe it does contribute to the problem. Not every kid that comes to school with bruises is being abused at home. That said it is a risk factor some teachers and school administrators consider. Add bruising to poor school performance, the parents not attending events, and administrator might decide to sit down and spend a few minutes discussing what might be going on. It isn't a bad thing. While mass school shooting are rare there are also an increasingly occurring. I think teachers and school administrators should have some basic training in the potential warning signs. Perhaps owning a gun or living in a home with a gun shouldn't be considered but I think it is obvious that something must happen.

Not exactly. I said it is a risk factor but there are others obvious ones like being a teenager and having access to the firearm which wouldn't apply to your 4yrs old. Nikolas Cruz had access to guns, had been involved with a White Nationalist group, was known to people on his social media as anger, and so on. I understand that for political reasons a lot of people are uncomfortable labeling White Nationalist as hate groups or domestic terrorist. I understand that political reasons people are uncomfortable saying that someone posing with a gun on social media is exhibiting questionable behavior. That said at some point we do need to take our heads out of the sand. We can acknowledge risk factors without imposing a door to door collection of all guns.There is a difference between a kid with a gun that he or she uses to go pheasant shooting with their parents and a kid with a gun they use to exhibit there frustration and hyper masculinity and/or insecurity on social media. Mental health history, medication, history of anti social behavior, problems with a girlfriend or boyfriend, etc are also all important risk factors. This is looking at risk factors in isolation. There are many risk factors that apply. As one checks the boxes and add they up the picture becomes more clear. When my doctor asks me about my families history of cancer or heart disease they know it doesn't absolutely mean anything about my health but it is a risk factor for consideration. My blood pressure, weight, diet, pulse, and etc are also rick factors they consider.

Only about 40% of households have guns. Closer to 90% of households have a car. So it isn't quite as bad. Additionally it is a crime to let minors or those without a license to drive. It is common, in my experience, that parents inquire about who is driving or if someone is driving when school age kids get together. There is a known risk associated with young drivers. If such awareness could be created towards guns that would be great. Another risk factor seems to be fetish for taking photos wear tactical vest and holding firearms.

He is the President. His office is the highest one in our govt. I am not happy about that but it is a the way it is. His suggestions can simply be ignored. Assuming the GOP move forward with trying to daft something I think it is best for those opposed to have alternatives. Considering school shooters nearly always use a weapon that was in their home it might be a good idea for school administrators to start keeping track of which students are in homes with firearms. Having firearms in a home does seem to a an identifiable risk factor.

@ John Cuthber police officers are armed and police officer have been still been attacked. That said it is something being suggested at the highest levels of government. So it is a real thing being considered I think the answer to the initial question of should they be armed is a NO. However the answer to the second question isn't as simple to answer. What can schools do?

The President has suggested arming Teachers as a way to prevent future mass shootings. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-floats-bonuses-teachers-willing-carry-guns-class-n850281 Is this something that would work to prevent school shootings? What are the things schools can do to reduce the likelihood of on campus shootings?

I posted that there are anonymous people on YouTube with audience large as or larger than some journalist. I have already proved there are. Words like "crackpot" are your words and not mine. I do not need to provide you proof of things I have not posted. What I posted was 100% accurate. Large is a relative term. Are you suggesting trolls don't exist? "WASHINGTON — An estimated 126 million Americans, roughly one-third of the nation’s population, received Russian-backed content on Facebook during the 2016 campaign, according to prepared testimony the company submitted Monday to the Senate Judiciary Committee and obtained by NBC News." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russian-backed-election-content-reached-126-million-americans-facebook-says-n815791 The DNC hacked material weren't lies. Something can be true yet still used as propaganda or to sow division. Wikileaks uses anonymous sources. Had people been aware the source was Russia and Russia was interfering I think it would have influenced the way the information was processed. So you are wrong about my position. I am not directly associating anonymity with cults and lies. I am arguing that when something is anonymous its motives aren't known and that motive matters. Something true can be said for destructive or manipulative reasons. Context always is always important when consuming information Actually they do not always know who there are. That is why Twiiter froze accounts and forced people to verify they weren't bots this week. It is a constant struggle. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/conservatives-melt-down-as-twitter-annihilates-fake-accounts As for why average people should knowing; I think it is good to know the source of information. Consider that Yevgeny Prigozhin was one of the financiers for the Russia troll farms that interfered in the 2016 election. He backs groups in Syria that have tried to kill U.S. Military personnel. You don't think people should know if they are viewing info promoted by someone like him? "Yevgeny Prigozhin — a Russian businessman and restauranteur dubbed “Putin's chef" by the Russian media — is deeply involved in the Wagner Group, officials said, a paramilitary firm based in southern Russia. According to those officials, the firm deployed mercenaries in Syria who tried to strike U.S. special operations forces earlier this month. The attack failed, two intelligence officials told ABC News, as the mercenaries were decimated by U.S. airstrikes during their advance." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/russian-troll-farm-financier-backs-russian-mercenaries-syria/story?id=53256296

“In many respects, what Mueller’s report tells us is not new to us,” Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, said. “We knew that they were trying to sow division within the American people. In my case, it was to tell Bernie supporters that Hillary Clinton is a criminal, that Hillary Clinton is crazy, that Hillary Clinton is sick — terrible, terrible ugly stuff — and to have Bernie Sanders supporters either vote for Trump or Jill Stein or not vote at all.” https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2018/02/20/bernie-sanders-mueller-indictment-hillary-clinton-2016/356453002/

https://www.youtube.com/user/AnonymousWorldvoce/videos There is literally a Youtube page called Anonymous with 1.9 million subscribers. There are many of these pages. Let's go back to my original post you are challenging: I have already provided you the proof you asked for (twice now) showing that there are anonymous people on YouTube with a greater audience than some journalists. My post was about their anonymity. The post I made is 100% accurate.You do not know who the writers and producers are or who is profiting from channels like Anonymous and Alltime Conspiracies. Arguing about the the content of those pages is not in context with the post you are responding to. This thread asks a couple of questions: " What are the long and short term implication of people believing the fiction of Internet Trolls? What can be or should be done about it?". In response to what can or should be done I recommended that monetized blogs, YouTube, and Social Media accounts shouldn't be anonymous. I think we should know who is producing and profiting. That would not infringe on free speech. Knowing who journalists and pundits are doesn't prevent their speech so I don't see what the different is. What problems do you see or have with that suggestion?

Alltime Conspiracies, they have 1.5 million subscribers. There about page references a Facebook page and the about feature on the Facebook page references the YouTube page.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43144717 Twitter to action against bots today. Accounts were locked till verified via phone number. That is a good start to limiting those with numerous accounts using bots to make their position seems bigger than it is. Provided Twitter isn't editing individual content I like it. To that end if numerous accounts are using same verification phone number I think there should be a feature reflects the fact all the accounts are mutually managed. Free speech is a terrific thing but I think people should have some idea where the speech is coming from. I don't home addresses but rather affiliations.

It is the FCC's official page. You can search whichever standards you want to know about as it relates to the FCC. What size audience do you think average journalist has? I ask because numerous YouTube channels have millions of subscribers and I am sure you are aware of that. So what exactly are you challenging? I am not in the mood to provide links just to chase you down a rabbit hole of "what about this" challenges.

I addressed zap and explained why I don't feel it would work. What do you need me to clarify?

And? You've already stated in previous posts that you do not feel giving up anything you may have is necessary or useful. Nope, 3rd time today (2 different threads) you have misrepresented my position.

I explained why I didn't feel it would work. Additionally I don't recommend things I myself am unwilling to do. That is your assumption. For all you know I own a an armory of weapons.

It also wasn't my suggestion. Zaps brought it up. Why should I entertain a suggestion they (Zap) themselves won't??

I said some anonymous YouTube channel have the same size audience of some licensed journalist; not mainstream media at large. This is the second time in this thread you challenged me based on an idea I didn't post or imply. Please take better care to read my posts before arguing. If you need clarification, ask. https://www.fcc.gov/media/customer-service-standards#block-menu-block-4 The FCC does regulate the industry.

Calling for people to do something which you yourself would not do makes it argumentative nonsense. Feel free to prove me wrong by buying and Assualt Weapon and destroying it.

No, you are creating your own conditions. I didn't call on you to say you'd give your gun(s) up if it would save a life. You offered that false dichotomy up all on your own. It is you calling for people to purchase Assualt Weapons and destroy them, I am not. What I have called for is no more purchasing of items that provide the gun industry with more money. Something your suggestion would 100% do. The contradiction involved is on your side. I do not purchase any of the items I am asking others not to. I am doing what I am asking others to. Meanwhile your proposal is purely argumentative nonsense. You have no intention to follow through with the recommendation yourself.

From Brexit to Trump!! That said the issue transcends politics. Actual journalism is regulated. A journalist for the New York Times can lose it's license or be sued. Some anonymous person on YouTube sourcing some anonymous Twitter feed that itself is sourcing something on Instagram can basically say anything. In many cases the size of the audience is greater for the person on YouTube. Regulation hasn't kept up with the changes in the way people consume news.

People buying assualt weapons and destroying them without an assualt weapons ban in place on Manufacturing would not lead to less assualt weapons in circulation. Rather it would lead to yet another market to sell assualt weapons in. The people destroying them market. I haven't actually called on anyone to give up guns or accessories they already have. Rather I have said gun enthusiast should stop buying more. Stop feeding the industry. To that end I am right there. I am not buying ammunition, targets, shooting glasses, and etc.

I said those who monetize it should not be anonymous. I DID NOT say it should be a crime. That is one of the short term impacts for sure. What are some of the long term ones and what can be done?

Please, show me where I associated "idiot", "insane", or "Americans" with "fun to shoot" in a post. That or you can be specific about who "you guys" refers to.

Free speech doesn't protect those who'd yell fire in a crowded theater just to see people panic. Let's not forget a man open fired in Washington DC restaurant during the 2016 Election (pizza-gate) because of anti Clinton propaganda. The negative consequences are real and post a tangible threat to the public.

Free speech is free speech and all Western Democracy protect free speech. I don't think it can be weeded out or moderated in real time. I do think those who have monetized blogs, webpages, social media accounts, and etc should lose their anonymity. If it is speech for profit the source should be known.