The only ‘mass shooting’ was the Philly one. Intellectually stunted and politically blinded morons are trying to change the definition by lumping in gang bangers doing drive bys and shooting up house parties. If you Individually dig through the gunviolencearchive.org sources, the overwhelming majority of them have an African American teenager with a handgun set out to settle a personal vendetta; yet somehow that scenario is - by gunviolence.orgs own statistical criteria - categorized the same exact way as a deranged psychopath with an AR-15 randomly shooting up a mall (which even once is way too fucking common, but not as statistically prominent as the site is trying to mislead the public to believe).
It’s not a gun problem, it’s a cultural one.
Why can’t it be both? Especially when guns are so interwoven into the culture.
So it’s not a mass shooting if the person is black and the crime is personal? What led you to come with that criteria? I tend to think “A mass shooting is a violent crime in which an attacker kills or injures multiple individuals simultaneously using a firearm.” is a pretty fair definition. You know “mass” as in several individuals involved and “shooting” as in a firearm was involved. Keep it up with the mental gymnastics though.
People love to point the fingers at the tool used to do evil things. Instead of addressing why the evil thing is happening.
Banning and restricting guns is a band aid solution that harms the general populace more than it benefits.
Bad actors that want to inflict harm are not concerned with using something legal to get the job done. There will always be inventive whackos out there that will find ways to hurt people. Guns or no guns.
The Swiss have almost the same firearm to people ratio as America ( at least compared to the rest of the world ) and under have far fewer of the same issues. I think this is largely because of cultural differences and availability for healthcare.
People keep giving the swiss as an example but it’s not the same context. Mainly because in Switzerland all men go through mandatory military service and that builds some discipline when handling a gun. Also they still have to get ( strict ) permits for those weapons, even with the accompanying training.
It is my impression ( and I apologize for the generalizations ) that in the US they’re essentially handing out assault rifles to any rando with some cash on him.
A swiss permit is as strict as a USA background check.
I’m not even kidding.
You get a permit by not having a relevant criminal record and being of age.
USA background check is to see if you have a relevant criminal record and if you are old enough.
Saaaaaame shit in the end.
USA gun laws vary by state. Even those with the strictest of gun laws still have lots of gun violence.
Disarming your population isn’t the answer.
Weird how the US is literally the only first world country with this problem. No way it has anything to do with the ease of access to guns!
I wonder if there are any other differences in America from other first-world countries? Maybe it’s the availability of swimming pools? Or too many McDonalds? Or maybe there are numerous social issues that are unaddressed here in the states and have been responsible for a much higher incidence of violence in general, of which guns are a small part.
There’s violent and unhinged people in every country. The difference is the guns… it couldn’t be anymore fucking obvious lol
People who want to kill people will kill people regardless of the tools available to them.
Hardware stores in any county contain the means to create mass killing events with a weekly paycheck.
You are not safe from people who intend to do you harm because you have gun laws. Stop thinking life is so simple.
Weird how there’s no pandemic of mass murders with hardware tools. Stop being fucking delusional and use your brain.
This is why we chose to stay home on holidays. I feel bad that my kids are missing out, but I would rather have them miss some fireworks than risk becoming a statistic.
You are paranoid and ruining your children’s childhood for no reason at all. Learn statistics, and incorporate that into your daily life. Hint if you drive a car you are endangering your children way more.
Interesting, you’re telling me to learn statistics, and then you skipped over the leading cause of death for children in the United States.
Try incorporating empathy in your life, and understand it’s not about you. If you don’t have the same concern as others, you don’t have to resort to insults; you can accept that someone else feels differently without trying to hurt them.
So first and foremost, how you raise your children is your business. Also, it really sucks you live in a place where you have to factor can violence into the education of your kids. However, as someone who believes over protecting children can be more harmful than beneficial to them, there is a counter argument to be made.
In a way, the tone of the reply of the other poster might have been more wrong than the content. What I mean by this, is that statistics is a very tricky science to apply to our own reality sometimes. For instance, one could substract the cases of gun violence caused by guns of the own household if you don’t own any guns. Or correct for the area you live in, if this is a place with particularly low or high incidence of gun violence. Or discount the school shooting statistics, if you are only using the statistics as a reason not to let them go to social gatherings.
Again, in no way do I want to tell you what to do, just stating that the same statistics can be used to both support or counter an argument.
It seems like common sense to make guns have the same requirements as cars. You need to pass a short course and get a license. I don’t understand what is unclear about the 2nd amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Right there, in the text: “Well regulated”.
Well regulated, as in well maintained. Additionally, it is a conditional clause providing the context for its existence. Taking this legal approach has never worked in court. The Constitution was written to be changed for a reason but we are afraid to or it is opposed.
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
Average of 2.2 mass shooting every day this year
Just absolutely mind boggling how frequently this happens and literally nothing is being done about it. What a sick country.
They ARE doing something about it.
Financing the whole thing!
“They ARE doing something about it. Financing the whole thing!”.
No they are not. You seem also out of control, buddy.
It’s all a mix of the second ammendment, their interpretation & execution of that law, a dominant military and guns lobby system (Billionaire$); people loving their guns, no access to good (mental) health care, which allthogether is holding their country hostage, imho.
So yeah, its all out of control. And nothing has changed, except that it’s getting worse.
add.(mental) healthcare
Part 1:
No they are not
Part 2:
It’s all a mix of the second ammendment, their interpretation & execution of that law, a dominant military and guns lobby system (Billionaire$); people loving their guns, no access to good (mental) health care, which allthogether is holding their country hostage, imho.
LOL
He is not that wrong, after all switzerland too have guns and they control it with ease. They even celebrate a gun festival. where children practice shooting.
New York has more people than Switzerland.
That’s why we use per capita for statistics like this. It doesn’t matter who has more people if you adjust for population. Now, you could argue density is the problem, but in less dense places in the US the rate is even higher, so…
Excellent mental gymnastics, color me impressed. You’ve almost made me think Switzerland is the USA.
Great idea. Let’s make the USA a small homogeneous group and see what happens.
Great idea. Let’s make the USA a small homogeneous group and see what happens.
For all its foibles and peculiarities, the US’ apparently almost fetishistic relationship with guns is far and away the hardest for me to understand as an outside observer.
Trust me, I live here and I don’t get it either. And when you ask people they’ll tell you they have guns because other people have guns so they need it for protection. So you guys all have guns because you’re scared other people have guns?? Great recipe.
Play by the rules of the game you’re playing.
Not the rules of the game you want to play.
If only the crazies have guns, they’re going to start acting a lot crazier. Does it magically make everything safer to have your own? Obviously not. Statistically you’re more likely to shoot yourself.
But until we pass actual gun control, it’s hard to judge someone for having a gun.
Why not buy a bulletproof vest instead? Fighting fire with fire is not always the most efficient…
I remember seeing some sort of huge bulletproof blanket used by Japanese police to apprehend armed peoples. They hide behind that blanket and run towards the gunner to wrap them in it. The good side is that the gunner can be arrested alive for trial.
I don’t know if it was just a concept or of its really in use…
I have an honest question for you. Have you ever seen a bulletproof vest?
Also, the person you’re replying to gave a very frightening scenario: being hunted down at your own home. If you’re not shooting back, what do you think the enemy is going to do? Give up and go away? Molotov cocktails are an easy, low-tech solution to a barricaded enemy you don’t care about taking alive.
Now, if we assume you’re in public, there are still issues with a bulletproof vest. They’re not really all that great at being concealed. If you truly have a bulletproof vest that can fit underneath clothing, it’s not going to stop many bullets. You can look through the wikipedia page on different levels of body armor, and do a quick search to see how bulky the different types are. Police armor is rated for most handguns, and is super bulky already. Military armor can hopefully stand up to a rifle bullet, but they’re often ceramic plates, which don’t last against multiple rounds, and are very obvious and stand out. Your slim-fit vest may be able to handle a very small subset of rounds. If you go the route of more protection, you’re going to find yourself targeted by the gunman due to your visibility and because your potential as a threat is large compared to others. Even a very high quality, military vest/suit is not going to cover you well enough to make a difference if a single person is shooting at you and A) you don’t have buddies to give you cover fire and make them put their head down and B) space because you knew the shooter was an enemy before he pulled out a gun and started shooting at you.
I was once advised never to discuss this topic with Americans because it’s impossible to have a normal logic discussion… But I’m a bit dumb so I’ll do it anyway! (Assuming you’re American, sorry if I’m mistaken!)
A couple of points:
-
You’re right, I’ve never actually seen a bulletproof vest in real life. Notice that your laser focus on the technicality of some vests is very interesting and explains why they are not very common. Yet it doesn’t really implies that it couldn’t work. For example, the slim-fit c’est you’re taking about would be an excellent solution to give a chance to run away. In a similar vein, ABS brakes on a car do not perfectly prevent collisions but still help reduce the severity of accidents.
-
Regarding your imaginary scenario, please re-read the thread… It seems to me that you’re the first one mentioning the “very frightening scenario”. I’ll skip this one for now since it’s a different topic.
-
In public, would a concealable vest be good enough against concealable guns? Would a concealable gun be effective against a non-concealable big gun? It seems to me that all your arguments against vests also applies to guns…
Replacing guns by non-lethal tools would probably be just as effective to disable an attacker, while at the same time being a good first step to detox from this gun addiction, hopefully leading to a reduced number of gun accidents.
-
Every time I ask this question:
What lae do you propose, that didn’t already exist, wouldn’t violate the Bill of Rights, and wouldn’t cause a civil war?
Most of the time I either get answers that include laws that exist that the government doesn’t enforce, or a “fuck the constitution, let’s have a civil war!”
For example the army is supposed to report people discharged distribution to the NCIS. They don’t.
The ATF is supposed to follow up when a banned individual tries to buy a gun. They don’t.
The ATF is supposed to check on people when gun dealers report them for attempted straw purchases. They don’t.
Know someone who had illegal weapons? Call the police and see what they do. Here’s a hint: nothing
So, does anyone have one?
Ah lots of statements not backed in fact here. Mr Monkey is an accelerationist. Bye now.
Meanwhile, over 500 people have been killed by police in 2023 so far, and yet we never hear the president comment on that. Maybe we should be disarming the police?
Maybe disarm everyone?
Why? Lots of people have guns, and almost all of them are never a problem to anyone. Perhaps we should look into why violence happens and address those root causes and of course disarm the police because their only purpose is violence.
Everyone having guns is the sole reason there’s so many police shootings. Nothing is going to change until the general population is unarmed.
What an insane take. Plenty of police shootings are on unarmed individuals. Moreover, having an unarmed populace wouldn’t prevent police shootings when the core cause of police brutality isn’t addressed. They demand control and obedience; you being unarmed doesn’t make them any less likely to shoot you if you’re not being obedient.
That’s not a “take” that’s reality lol
US cops have to always assume that someone can be armed given the insane amount of guns and ease of access. That is directly correlated with the wide spread use of lethal force.
Cops in countries with sane gun laws, for example the UK, can safely assume the average citizen does not have a gun on them.
It’s used as an excuse. If people weren’t armed, they’d find another excuse. That’s what I mean by not addressing the underlying problem of police brutality and abuse of power. Also, they’ll always say they thought someone had a gun even when they know almost for certain the person didn’t, because they know you’ll buy it.
What other excuse? Guns are literally the main issue…
You can have the best police training programs in the world, but if the population is heavily armed and unregulated you’re still going to have ton of police shootings.
Of course they always say “thought we saw a gun”. Guns are so numerous they have to assume the worst else the chances of getting shot goes way up.
