Not at all. Among other things this shows politicians how much people care about fixing this problem. With any luck it will be another "if the people lead, the leaders will follow" moment like with SOPA.
I can't tell if you're serious or joking, but without a call to action (for gun control, mental health services, whatever you support) there's nothing to be done here. If there was a call to action, I would support it a bit more.
So this lasts for... how long? One minute? How many users will see it, and how many of them will not appreciate it? I understand the SOPA blackout, that directly impacts the web and it brought attention to a major issue. The shooting at Sandy Hook already has massive media attention and doesn't directly impact the web. There are memorials set up, there is an address you can send cards, there is probably a donation form somewhere.
The shooting was tragic and I support memorial services for the victims, but the only sites I see blacking out are ones where no one is going to see it anyway. I would be somewhat disappointed if any site I visited was observing this moment of silence. There are appropriate places to mourn.
Try telling that to the scamsters who have launched hundreds of sites asking for donations to victim's family when they have absolutely no connection to the victims.
And a virtual moment of silence helps resolve this how? The SOPA blackout was to draw attention to an issue that threatened to potentially shut down the web as we know it. You'll find scammers anywhere. I stand by "doesn't directly impact the web". Scams are not a threat to the web, they're a threat to the people who fall for them. Do you think this moment of silence is going to convince the scammers to close up shop? The site doesn't even call out scams as a reason for this blackout.
Maybe to give your point more credibility, the author of this could add in a call to action to shut down scam sites, with a reasonable method to follow in achieving this goal. Instead, it's as effective as putting a ribbon on your car.
Why are we even discussing guns? They account for less than 0.5% of deaths (excluding suicides) in the USA. You are two and a half times more likely to fall to your death accidentally than be killed by a gun. You are three and a half times more likely to die in a car crash.
Heart disease kills 28 innocent people in the USA every 25 minutes! Cancer kills another 28 innocent people in that time! More innocent people die from car crashes every minute than die from guns. Does a mad gunman kill 28 people every 25 minutes? I haven't even heard of any more such shooting this week, nevermind every 25 minutes since the Sandy Hook incident.
Guns don't even make the top 15 list* (below)! And #15 ranks in at 2.8% the amount of deaths as #1. In the interest of tackling problems that would actually make a meaningful difference, looking at causes at that small percentage of the problem is really a waste of time.
If any remember not too long ago, the 'year of the shark', it is much like how that 'epidemic' of shark attacks was suddenly so pressing in our consciousness. Not because you had any chance at all of dying of shark attacks, but simply because the media had chosen to spotlight the infinitesimally small amount of deaths caused by sharks. Just as you have no chance to die of sharks, you have no chance to die from guns. Just because the media purposely chooses to fill their pages with mostly gun crime doesn't mean that what they choose to report actually reflects the ratios that exist in reality. The tyrants have an agenda to disarm the people so that they can more easily enslave them. Just as the tyrants of Russia took control of the media in order to sway peoples opinions to suit their agenda, the tyrants of our countries have long ago done so as well.
In the USA, approximately 6,755 people die - every day. Twenty eight people dying is a sad thing, but irrelevant to the 6,755 people that die every day! The national media focuses on this negligible number of deaths because it suits the agenda of the parasitic ruling class. If they didn't choose to focus on it (for weeks and weeks even), then it would just be another 0.4145% of the deaths that occurred in a day.
Guns are our only defense against the next Trotsky, Stalin, Lennin or Mao once again purging a 100 million of their own people. Let's ban cars instead of guns. It would prevent more deaths, and cars are a lot less important to our freedom than guns. I would rather walk or bike to work than be thrown in the next gulag or purged because we allowed the tyrants to disarm their people.
Note that it is right to exclude suicides because: a) really, those people have the right to die, b) only half of suicides are by guns, thus you would only cut suicide by 50%, and c) you wouldn't even cut it by 50% as probably most of those people would use another way to kill themselves just like the other 50% of people who commit suicide do. Regardless, even if you don't exclude suicide then you are still more likely to die from falling or an auto accident than by a gun.
Proof of the pure BS that the media is stirring up against guns:
From the CDC's: National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 60, Number 4 (January 2012)
Numbers for 2010 (latest tabulated in the 2012 report):
Total deaths in 2010: 2,465,932
595,444 Heart Disease
573,855 Cancer
137,789 Chronic lower respiratory disease
129,180 Cerebrovascular disease
118,043 Accidents [A]
83,308 Alzheimer's
68,905 Diabetes mellitus
50,472 Influenza and pneumonia
37,793 Suicide [S]
37,843 Septicemia
31,802 Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
26,577 Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease
"Twenty eight people dying is a sad thing, but irrelevant to the 6,755 people that die every day!"
In terms of number, yes you are correct. But are you honestly arguing that just because 28 ppl die due to guns every day while 6755 ppl die due to heart disease, cancer etc, we should stop talking about the 28 ppl ? Say that 1 more time? It is not about the numbers. It is about how those 28 ppl are dying vs. the 6755 ppl. Cancer: enough research/actions are being taken and going on. Heart disease: plenty. Ppl have a choice there with lifestyle etc to an extent. What choice do I have if someone comes at me with a semi-automatic gun ? Is that my fault ?
"Let's ban cars instead of guns"
Even if you say this 1000 times, it does not change the fact that you are comparing apples and oranges. Yes ppl die to due to car accidents but until ppl start using cars to mass murder 26 ppl like sandy hook, stop using this analogy. Try running over 26 ppl at once with a car in a matter of minutes and see how far u get. Try the same with an semi-automatic gun.
We are discussing guns because the US has a homicide rate on par with countries like Yemen and Bulgaria. Every other 'first-world' economy is significantly safer than us. It's not a binary choice between gun safety and heart health, we can (and are) working on all of these things in parallel. Traffic fatalities have dropped from 5.3/100mm miles in 1965 to 1.11/100mm thanks largely to those overbearing regulations corporatists love to hate. This is approximately equivalent to 120,000 US citizens not killed on highways every year. In the same time span, the homicide rate went from 5.1/100k to 4.8/100k (with a massive spike in the 70s and 80s)... There is clearly room for progress.
As for the "We're one law away from the next Lenin or Mao", I can't believe people honestly think that is a possible outcome. Especially when the length of the gun regulation is more along the lines of "Everyone should undergo a background test before buying a weapon" and "30-round magazines should be more strictly regulated".
Is there any appreciable difference between a country with 200 million firearms and one with 200 million firearms where people with a history of mental illness don't own the weapons?
>Guns are our only defense against the next Trotsky, Stalin, Lennin or Mao once again purging a 100 million of their own people.
Even though I support gun control, I recognize that there are many good reasons that people in opposition of gun control put forward.
This is certainly not one of them.
If the government decided to steam roll your town, you'd have as much hope at defending yourself against them as the citizens of Iraq would. Small arms are not particularly effective against drones and armored vehicles.
Clearly the tyrants of today disagree with you. They would not be trying so desperately to ban guns if they did not fear an armed population!
Also,
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, over 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, over 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 86 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.
Yours is such a wilfully ignorant post, I'm not sure where to begin, or even if it's worth replying...
How do you explain the countless genocides in countries where guns are or were freely available? What about the Soviet dissidents that were exterminated before 1929? Would widespread availability of guns have prevented the holocaust - of course not!
It is the people that have the power to prevent genocide, not guns.
>Clearly the tyrants of today disagree with you. They would not be trying so desperately to ban guns if they did not fear an armed population!
I can't tell if you're serious. The world isn't out to get you. We've had sensible restrictions on guns in Canada for some time now without a resulting genocide.
Is it so hard for you to believe that one might want guns banned for reasons other than the oppression of fellow citizens? As a citizen I have nothing to gain by banning guns. If I became a politician and offered the same position, I'd be called a scheming tyrant by individuals like yourself.
Your factual observation is correct, but I don't think the parent is suggesting that the absence of weapons guarantees genocide. I believe the claim is that weapons provide a deterrent to genocide.
To relate to your example: Canada may have merely "gotten lucky" in not yet having had a genocidal leader. If I had to pick among two competing theories:
Theory 1) An armed populace can deter genocide. The observed fact is because Canada hasn't yet had a leader inclined to genocide, or influential enough to accomplish it.
Theory 2) An armed populace cannot deter genocide.
I'd be inclined to believe the first. The policy implications of such a belief would, of course, depend on the general likelihood of leaders prone to genocide. If they are vanishingly rare, then the benefits of deterrence are probably outweighed by the costs of widely distributed arms. The history of twentieth century states leaves this, for me, an open question.
Not to mention that an armed United States is a reasonable deterrent that would undermine any attempt at genocide in Canada.
The moment it was clear that the Canadian government intended to begin mass executions, activists from the U.S would start moving weapons and other provisions over the border to assist a resistance. This is assuming that the U.S government didn't send its own military to stop the genocide itself.
> Even though I support gun control, I recognize that there are many good reasons that people in opposition of gun control put forward.
The problem with this train of thought is that gun control is enforced by gun violence.
Good people who just want to have weapons to defend themselves will be forced at gunpoint to surrender their weapons, and if they resist, they will be shot.
What is the difference between armed police officers and armed civilians? The most obvious would be the badge and uniform, but then you would think experience would follow, but it doesn't. Civilians are more experienced with their weapons than police officers are.
Just look at the problems the NYPD have been causing. It's alarming how many of these police officers don't spend any time at a gun range practicing, this is how 9 innocent people get shot by the police.
If you are eating at a diner and an armed man comes in with a gun screaming that he's going to start shooting everybody, you are going to be thankful to the civilian who is carrying his own weapon and prevents anyone from being harmed, you will not be thinking "I can't believe that regular looking guy had a gun on him this whole time, if that lunatic never came in here, I would have never known.. somebody needs to pass a law to stop that!"
Your comparison of gun related deaths to natural deaths is completely nonsensical.
How about this, the USA has both one of the highest murder rates, and some of the most relaxed gun laws in the first world. I am 3.5x as likely to get murdered in the USA compared to the UK. Around 66% of murders in the USA involve a firearm compared to 7% in the UK.
I am 33x as likely to be shot to death in the USA compared to the UK.
Don't you think that someone with easy access to a gun is more likely to commit murder in the heat of an argument compared to someone who doesn't?
Do you really believe that easy access to guns is a good thing?
Do you really believe that having access to guns will prevent a dictatorship in the USA? I don't. I think that would ensure a bloody civil war. As someone else on here pointed out recently, non violent mass protest is far more likely to effect change because a striking workforce can cripple an economy rather quickly.
A striking work force isn't going to work when you are easily thrown into forced labor camps because you have been neutered in your ability to defend yourself.
Please answer all my questions rather than just sniping at one of them.
How are your small arms going to defend against tanks, apaches, drones and the rest of your government's military might? Your reasoning is at least 60 years out of date. The prevalence of guns in america is a cancer on the american people.
I don't see how you can compare extremely theatrical deaths caused by malice to more prosaic deaths caused by negligence or medical problems. It's not as if people are just as dead regardless of how they died.
Plus, killing sprees are responsible for practically two dozen deaths per year. I'm sure it's easier to prevent them than it is to avert two dozen people from taking up smoking or to get them to wear seatbelts.
Some deaths are simply more upsetting than others, and your data really put a damper on our contest to see who can be saddest about this.
"Heart disease kills 28 innocent people in the USA every 25 minutes! Cancer kills another 28 innocent people in that time! More innocent people die from car crashes every minute than die from guns. Does a mad gunman kill 28 people every 25 minutes? I haven't even heard of any more such shooting this week, nevermind every 25 minutes since the Sandy Hook incident."
Sorry, but this tactic is nonsensical.
Ignoring the homicide versus natural death, intentional versus accidental schism (as if theft doesn't matter if you can point to accidental loss), we do talk about heart disease, cancer, and traffic accidents. Constantly.
Every year cars introduce more and more controls to try to improve safety on a device that offers incredible utility and value to society. There are hundreds of thousands of officers out there trying to ensure roadway safety. There are ads and new legislation constantly.
We legislate foods constantly, have billions spent to combat the other menaces. Chemicals and our environment have incredible and onerous controls to prevent cancer and other human ailments.
Why are we talking about guns? Geez, if we talked about it 1/100th as much as the other issues, maybe something would get done.
I'll tell you why: because many of these deaths are preventable, particularly the deaths of children.
It's a red herring to talk about heart disease and cancer. Old people have to die of something. Children don't, and in other countries they don't die by being shot.
The priorities here are all backwards. The leading cause of death among those 15-24 is suicide. More people die in the U.S. from suicide than from car accidents or murder. The lifetime prevalence of mental health disorders is 1 in 3. Mental health spending now surpasses all cancers combined, yet where is the cultural emphasis on treating it like any other preventable and treatable illness?
The issue here isn't guns. It's how we diagnose, manage, and treat brain health.
At first glance I'd think this was illegitimate. I mean, you expect people to deploy this before tomorrow, and the script tag isn't ready yet? Sure, I'll let you harvest my email address. If it weren't for the fact that this was created by the people behind causes.com, my alarms would be ringing.
Project creators should probably take some direction from sopablackout.org, or even modify the sopablackout snippet (it's not hard to do) to suit their needs. Since the users will be linking to an external resource, they can install it as soon as possible (and should, if they expect to have as many users as possible) and updates can be pushed out behind the scenes.
(disclosure, I'm responsible for the js snippet on sopablackout - yes, if anybody wants to ping me with questions about how it works I'm available)
In case anyone is curious, this modal dialogue stays up for 5 min. The script is hosted on their servers, not a CDN. It uses the client's system time. And it is somewhat configurable, offering the three global (ack) variables:
35 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 109 ms ] threadthanks
The shooting was tragic and I support memorial services for the victims, but the only sites I see blacking out are ones where no one is going to see it anyway. I would be somewhat disappointed if any site I visited was observing this moment of silence. There are appropriate places to mourn.
Try telling that to the scamsters who have launched hundreds of sites asking for donations to victim's family when they have absolutely no connection to the victims.
Maybe to give your point more credibility, the author of this could add in a call to action to shut down scam sites, with a reasonable method to follow in achieving this goal. Instead, it's as effective as putting a ribbon on your car.
Just because something is a tragedy doesn't mean we should turn it into a hoopla of cooperative and meaningless tripe.
Skip the hollow gestures and spend a real moment of silence yourself maybe?
Heart disease kills 28 innocent people in the USA every 25 minutes! Cancer kills another 28 innocent people in that time! More innocent people die from car crashes every minute than die from guns. Does a mad gunman kill 28 people every 25 minutes? I haven't even heard of any more such shooting this week, nevermind every 25 minutes since the Sandy Hook incident.
Guns don't even make the top 15 list* (below)! And #15 ranks in at 2.8% the amount of deaths as #1. In the interest of tackling problems that would actually make a meaningful difference, looking at causes at that small percentage of the problem is really a waste of time.
If any remember not too long ago, the 'year of the shark', it is much like how that 'epidemic' of shark attacks was suddenly so pressing in our consciousness. Not because you had any chance at all of dying of shark attacks, but simply because the media had chosen to spotlight the infinitesimally small amount of deaths caused by sharks. Just as you have no chance to die of sharks, you have no chance to die from guns. Just because the media purposely chooses to fill their pages with mostly gun crime doesn't mean that what they choose to report actually reflects the ratios that exist in reality. The tyrants have an agenda to disarm the people so that they can more easily enslave them. Just as the tyrants of Russia took control of the media in order to sway peoples opinions to suit their agenda, the tyrants of our countries have long ago done so as well.
In the USA, approximately 6,755 people die - every day. Twenty eight people dying is a sad thing, but irrelevant to the 6,755 people that die every day! The national media focuses on this negligible number of deaths because it suits the agenda of the parasitic ruling class. If they didn't choose to focus on it (for weeks and weeks even), then it would just be another 0.4145% of the deaths that occurred in a day.
Guns are our only defense against the next Trotsky, Stalin, Lennin or Mao once again purging a 100 million of their own people. Let's ban cars instead of guns. It would prevent more deaths, and cars are a lot less important to our freedom than guns. I would rather walk or bike to work than be thrown in the next gulag or purged because we allowed the tyrants to disarm their people.
Note that it is right to exclude suicides because: a) really, those people have the right to die, b) only half of suicides are by guns, thus you would only cut suicide by 50%, and c) you wouldn't even cut it by 50% as probably most of those people would use another way to kill themselves just like the other 50% of people who commit suicide do. Regardless, even if you don't exclude suicide then you are still more likely to die from falling or an auto accident than by a gun.
Proof of the pure BS that the media is stirring up against guns:
From the CDC's: National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 60, Number 4 (January 2012)
Numbers for 2010 (latest tabulated in the 2012 report):
Total deaths in 2010: 2,465,932
595,444 Heart Disease
573,855 Cancer
137,789 Chronic lower respiratory disease
129,180 Cerebrovascular disease
118,043 Accidents [A]
83,308 Alzheimer's
68,905 Diabetes mellitus
50,472 Influenza and pneumonia
37,793 Suicide [S]
37,843 Septicemia
31,802 Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
26,577 Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease
21,963 Parkinson's disease
17,001 Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids
... ( ^ top 15 )
16,065 Assault (homicide) [M]
472,889 All other causes
[A]:
118,043 Accidents (total)
-> 37,661 Transport accidents
---> 35,080 Motor vehicle accidents
-> 25,903 Accidental Falls
-> 600 Accidental discharge of firearms
-> ...
[S]:
37,7...
In terms of number, yes you are correct. But are you honestly arguing that just because 28 ppl die due to guns every day while 6755 ppl die due to heart disease, cancer etc, we should stop talking about the 28 ppl ? Say that 1 more time? It is not about the numbers. It is about how those 28 ppl are dying vs. the 6755 ppl. Cancer: enough research/actions are being taken and going on. Heart disease: plenty. Ppl have a choice there with lifestyle etc to an extent. What choice do I have if someone comes at me with a semi-automatic gun ? Is that my fault ?
"Let's ban cars instead of guns"
Even if you say this 1000 times, it does not change the fact that you are comparing apples and oranges. Yes ppl die to due to car accidents but until ppl start using cars to mass murder 26 ppl like sandy hook, stop using this analogy. Try running over 26 ppl at once with a car in a matter of minutes and see how far u get. Try the same with an semi-automatic gun.
As for the "We're one law away from the next Lenin or Mao", I can't believe people honestly think that is a possible outcome. Especially when the length of the gun regulation is more along the lines of "Everyone should undergo a background test before buying a weapon" and "30-round magazines should be more strictly regulated".
Is there any appreciable difference between a country with 200 million firearms and one with 200 million firearms where people with a history of mental illness don't own the weapons?
Even though I support gun control, I recognize that there are many good reasons that people in opposition of gun control put forward.
This is certainly not one of them.
If the government decided to steam roll your town, you'd have as much hope at defending yourself against them as the citizens of Iraq would. Small arms are not particularly effective against drones and armored vehicles.
Also,
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, over 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, over 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 86 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.
How do you explain the countless genocides in countries where guns are or were freely available? What about the Soviet dissidents that were exterminated before 1929? Would widespread availability of guns have prevented the holocaust - of course not!
It is the people that have the power to prevent genocide, not guns.
people with guns
I can't tell if you're serious. The world isn't out to get you. We've had sensible restrictions on guns in Canada for some time now without a resulting genocide.
Is it so hard for you to believe that one might want guns banned for reasons other than the oppression of fellow citizens? As a citizen I have nothing to gain by banning guns. If I became a politician and offered the same position, I'd be called a scheming tyrant by individuals like yourself.
Bizarre. Your comments remind me of: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/08/08/calga... Perhaps the attitudes of Canadians and Americans differ more on this issue than I initially thought.
To relate to your example: Canada may have merely "gotten lucky" in not yet having had a genocidal leader. If I had to pick among two competing theories:
Theory 1) An armed populace can deter genocide. The observed fact is because Canada hasn't yet had a leader inclined to genocide, or influential enough to accomplish it.
Theory 2) An armed populace cannot deter genocide.
I'd be inclined to believe the first. The policy implications of such a belief would, of course, depend on the general likelihood of leaders prone to genocide. If they are vanishingly rare, then the benefits of deterrence are probably outweighed by the costs of widely distributed arms. The history of twentieth century states leaves this, for me, an open question.
The moment it was clear that the Canadian government intended to begin mass executions, activists from the U.S would start moving weapons and other provisions over the border to assist a resistance. This is assuming that the U.S government didn't send its own military to stop the genocide itself.
The problem with this train of thought is that gun control is enforced by gun violence.
Good people who just want to have weapons to defend themselves will be forced at gunpoint to surrender their weapons, and if they resist, they will be shot.
What is the difference between armed police officers and armed civilians? The most obvious would be the badge and uniform, but then you would think experience would follow, but it doesn't. Civilians are more experienced with their weapons than police officers are.
Just look at the problems the NYPD have been causing. It's alarming how many of these police officers don't spend any time at a gun range practicing, this is how 9 innocent people get shot by the police.
If you are eating at a diner and an armed man comes in with a gun screaming that he's going to start shooting everybody, you are going to be thankful to the civilian who is carrying his own weapon and prevents anyone from being harmed, you will not be thinking "I can't believe that regular looking guy had a gun on him this whole time, if that lunatic never came in here, I would have never known.. somebody needs to pass a law to stop that!"
How about this, the USA has both one of the highest murder rates, and some of the most relaxed gun laws in the first world. I am 3.5x as likely to get murdered in the USA compared to the UK. Around 66% of murders in the USA involve a firearm compared to 7% in the UK.
I am 33x as likely to be shot to death in the USA compared to the UK.
Don't you think that someone with easy access to a gun is more likely to commit murder in the heat of an argument compared to someone who doesn't?
Do you really believe that easy access to guns is a good thing?
Do you really believe that having access to guns will prevent a dictatorship in the USA? I don't. I think that would ensure a bloody civil war. As someone else on here pointed out recently, non violent mass protest is far more likely to effect change because a striking workforce can cripple an economy rather quickly.
How are your small arms going to defend against tanks, apaches, drones and the rest of your government's military might? Your reasoning is at least 60 years out of date. The prevalence of guns in america is a cancer on the american people.
Plus, killing sprees are responsible for practically two dozen deaths per year. I'm sure it's easier to prevent them than it is to avert two dozen people from taking up smoking or to get them to wear seatbelts.
Some deaths are simply more upsetting than others, and your data really put a damper on our contest to see who can be saddest about this.
Sorry, but this tactic is nonsensical.
Ignoring the homicide versus natural death, intentional versus accidental schism (as if theft doesn't matter if you can point to accidental loss), we do talk about heart disease, cancer, and traffic accidents. Constantly.
Every year cars introduce more and more controls to try to improve safety on a device that offers incredible utility and value to society. There are hundreds of thousands of officers out there trying to ensure roadway safety. There are ads and new legislation constantly.
We legislate foods constantly, have billions spent to combat the other menaces. Chemicals and our environment have incredible and onerous controls to prevent cancer and other human ailments.
Why are we talking about guns? Geez, if we talked about it 1/100th as much as the other issues, maybe something would get done.
It's a red herring to talk about heart disease and cancer. Old people have to die of something. Children don't, and in other countries they don't die by being shot.
The issue here isn't guns. It's how we diagnose, manage, and treat brain health.
Project creators should probably take some direction from sopablackout.org, or even modify the sopablackout snippet (it's not hard to do) to suit their needs. Since the users will be linking to an external resource, they can install it as soon as possible (and should, if they expect to have as many users as possible) and updates can be pushed out behind the scenes.
(disclosure, I'm responsible for the js snippet on sopablackout - yes, if anybody wants to ping me with questions about how it works I'm available)
http://www.causes.com/moment_of_silence.js
In case anyone is curious, this modal dialogue stays up for 5 min. The script is hosted on their servers, not a CDN. It uses the client's system time. And it is somewhat configurable, offering the three global (ack) variables:
* showText (boolean to display action link)
* text (action link text)
* url (action link to causes.org)