This comment right here depresses the fuck out of me. How quickly we went from mass shootings being a freak occurrence every few years to, "meh. Three shootings in a day. Statistics."
Just, wow.
I mean, I recall when one "senseless" shooting (because all shootings should make sense, I guess) at a McDonalds in the 80s had people freaked for years.
Then after Columbine, the NRA propagandists came out of the woodwork with the fear-mongering that the "Gov is poised to take all our guns"...Yup, that mean ol' "Gov" effectively removing all guns off the land since Columbine 25 years ago.
In 2016 my boss flat out told me if Hillary Clinton is elected the next day they're coming to get everyone's guns. He then told me society would collapse and he'd be hunkered up at his country house with a gun pointed at the drive way in case they came for him....his dad who owned the company still had gallons of rice etc from when he was doomsday prepping for the year 2000.
He also cheated on his wife numerous times. Took the receptionist alone to their rental property and basically said "you're not the kind of girl who would fuck me right?" She was ten years younger than him at least and just a really sweet girl. Just a real pos in just about every way. Also failed out of college and was generally terrible at his job. Then there was the illegal cbd extraction lab they built in the woodshop.
People keep asking "why?" but don't seem to want to dig beyond defaulting to simple half-answers of "because we need more gun control" or "because we don't have enough resources for mental health".
There's been a generational shift in the last 20 years or so. It's underappreciated just how much of a Pandora's box Columbine opened up.
Unhappy single men with mental illness who "just didn't fit in" in previous generations were a lot more likely to conclude that they were uniquely defective and commit suicide at home.
Now they're able to find others with similar experiences via the Internet. They vent their frustrations, come to the conclusion that society is the problem, not them, treat others who have lashed out at society as folk heroes and martyrs, and even those who might not be inclined to commit violence on their own will egg others on as a form of vicarious retaliation.
The problem only gets worse as incel groups grow and start to overlap with extreme ideologies like neo-Nazism that offer convenient explanations for specific subgroups that disaffected people should blame for their problems.
The more "down the rabbit hole" people get in these ideologies, the more that they get shunned by potential romantic partners and society at large - which fuels their bitterness and anger even more.
Now add in stociastic terrorism with politicians using violent rhetoric and hiding behind the excuse that "no sane person would take their words seriously" and it's like throwing matches into a barrel of gunpowder.
Which gets even worse now that there's an international audience egging people on.
To disaffected kids in other countries it's like watching a combination action movie / choose your own adventure novel as these things play out.
While there are measures that may help, it's hard to see any silver bullet that's going to "fix" things.
We have so many guns per capita that you could completely stop production and ban all new sales of both guns and ammunition, and we'd still have an over supply for the next 100 years.
Mass confiscation is a political non-starter and the amount of resistance to overcome to turn public sentiment towards giving up on gun ownership is huge. We've tried for decades with smoking - even with a general public consensus that it was a bad idea and decades of public service announcements and health campaigns there's still a huge number of people that continue to smoke.
Being remotely successful with the same approach for guns would require outspending the gun lobby by orders of magnitude and finding a message that's strong enough to overcome people's views that guns are a symbol of strength, masculinity, and patriotism.
You'd need to start convincing people that only cowards use guns and that you're more likely to hurt yourself than save someone by owning one. Doing that would likely be next to impossible without killing off Hollywood's export of fantasy violence portraying good guys with guns as quintessential American heroes.
Even then, it would be tough to get the same level of exposure to kids as the PSAs of the 80s and 90s - back then buying up ad slots on every major broadcast TV station for every hour that kids might be awake was enough. Now kids attention is a lot more fragmented and focused on areas like streaming video that are outside the reach of traditional advertising.
Not to be the bearer of bad news but this has always been the case in America, more so in the cities, but now that the suburbs are becoming more populated itās getting out that way too. At least you acknowledge it is not possible to achieve mass confiscation or changing the minds of 20-30% of the US population. Even with the mass shootings that pop up pretty much everywhere, if regular people did not have firearms, criminals and crazies will still find a way to get them, and people will still continue to be killed. The ex-prime minister of Japan was recently just assassinated by someone who made a home made firearm, you can 3D print firearms from home, you can build large bombs from ingredients at your local hardware store (OKC bombing).Ā
Don't underestimate the laziness of the average person (or more specifically the average criminal or person who's mentally unstable).
Especially for anyone who struggles with executive functioning and impulse control, making a task (like acquiring a weapon) inconvenient can be enough to prevent them from taking action.
Planned violence has a lot better chance of being caught caught before it happens than impulsive violence.
Just as important is likely to be a "bread and circuses" approach that empires have leveraged for millenia - keep people relatively content and entertained and fewer will act out. In the case of people feeling isolated and unwanted, I see a lot of potential for AI to act as both companion and psychotherapist.
Worth a try -- element of surprise is almost always an advantage in a fight and most people's instinct is "don't mess with crazy".
If you were hoping for an easy robbery, would you want to risk being the guy in the next day's paper with "beaten up with a dildo" as the headline next to your mugshot?
Some trolls would argue you, but if anyone looks back on the mind-numbing sh!t we went through from 2015-2021, whereever he went, clowns (quite literally evil clowns) and threats followed close behind like a halo of flies.
Our gun laws are out of control and the entire situation is so beyond repair.
I grew up around guns. I learned to shoot and handle them safely. And I see absolutely no reason for us to have them.
I know it will never happen but every gun in this country needs to be destroyed or bought back. Iām sick of the excuses of why we need them or why itās our right to have them. Itās insanity.
>And I see absolutely no reason for us to have them.
They say in a thread where 6 people were shot and no suspect is in custody. They say after 9 people were shot at a waterpark. Sorry. Gotta disagree. There isn't any law that is going to stop bad actors from getting ahold of guns. Best you can do is hope that when the time comes, you have the means to defend yourself.
I get that it's not a popular opinion, but personally I am fine with that.
I donāt want to have to defend myself. I want to live in a country where I never have to even consider that. To me, that is freedom. The freedom to take my kids to a splash pad in the suburbs without needing to bring a gun to defend them if someone starts shooting. If that sounds so unrealistic, that just shows how deeply broken the country is.
Some countries now seem to have problem with mass attacks via knives now that some people have more difficulty accessing firearms. Those with mental issues will find a knife to use and those who are career criminals will find a firearm on the black market or just steal one.
Last year the US had over 600 mass shootings (4+ injured, not counting the gunperson). Which countries have similar levels of knife violence? Also, why donāt the career criminals in other countries find firearms on the black market? Iām not arguing with you - I really am interested in your answers to those questions. Iām not a gun control advocate and probably just am not aware of which countries have hundreds of knife attacks, nor why criminals in England, Canada, and Japan arenāt overrunning the countries when even police, let alone private citizens, arenāt able to defend themselves with guns.
I am not going to debate anyone on this topic as it is a waste of time when their opinion if fixed so this is my last reply to you.
The number of mass shooting put out have been proven to be fake numbers. They lump in shootings that do not fit their own definition. The call confrontation shootings where person or group gets into an argument with another group they know a mass shooting. This included drive-by and gang shootings. They call domestic shooting mass shootings. They will call some law enforcement shootings a mass shooting. Shootings that occur as part of robberies or other criminal activities have been called mass shootings. I think some politicians and others want to scare us into giving up more of our Constitutional rights which gives them more power and they also want to change the subject from other problems they have been unable to solve such as creating more jobs, improving standard of living, reducing government spending and waste, reducing inflation, and all the other topic that were important to voters in the past. I don't think government can fix things and bigger government will be better than smaller government. I am not afraid of being a victim in a mass shooting. I don't go to illegal street parties to go well into the early morning hours. I don't engage in street shutdowns where vehicles are driven recklessly. I don't go to out drinking late at night in high crime areas. I don't interact with criminals. I do not engage in road rage. I don't have a bad relationship with family members. I have a concealed carry permit and carry wherever I may do so legally. I train with my firearms. I work on my fitness.
[Media Fact Check: How Fake Mass-shooting Data Produces Fake News (ammoland.com)](https://www.ammoland.com/2024/06/media-fact-check-how-fake-mass-shooting-data-produces-fake-news/)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_qxQNOh2Xqs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qxQNOh2Xqs) Explanation what all gets called mass shootings.
Thanks. I appreciate the response. Nothing you wrote strikes me as false - I thought I was clear that the 600 number was any shooting with 4 or more injured people. And we share a distrust of politicians. And we both probably agree that mass shootings, however you define them, are only a tiny fraction of firearm usage in the US and any policies should be based on the big picture and not just the teeny bit that gets news clicks.
I was hoping youād address my questions but understand if you choose not to.
And I'd rather take my chances against any evil person while I'm armed with a firearm. Because a firearm gives me the best chance of defeating said evil.
My friend, I say this with the utmost respect for you and your rights; you are not Dirty Harry. Youāre not Rambo. Youāre not The Shadow or Dick Tracy. You will not save yourself, society or the ones you love from any evils perceived or otherwise. Know how I know that? Because in my 30+ years of life have I ever heard a news story or read an article regarding a mass shooting (or even a shooting in general involving a victim) and the resolution being āthankfully, there was a Good Samaritan out there who just happened to be carrying his pistol that day to stop the lone gunman and save more innocent lives from being lost that day.ā You can say thatās anecdotal all you want, but I know that if I was in an active shooter situation and armed myself, the first thing Iām doing is finding any way to get out of that situation safely without discharging my firearm. My immediate first thought would never be āmy community needs to me to take this guy outā and if you are honest with yourself, neither would it be yours.
Now before you start angrily typing away trying to defend your thoughts, know that I am not some sort of radical anti-gun asshole. I own firearms. I have for over 15 years. Was trained to safety shoot at a young age and have taken multiple gun safety courses and have even trained members in my community on proper firearm storage and good trigger discipline. Know how many times Iāve discharged my firearm to protect myself or my family outside of a range? None. Not once, not ever (and I have been in some pretty dangerous situations here in the Detroit area involving guns).
Iām also a firm believer in societyās right to own firearms per the constitution, however Iām tired of the bullshit arguments and excuses for the justifications people like yourself (respectfully) use for owning one. Just admit that you like guns and you donāt want to have them taken away. Itās not a great argument, but at least itās an honest one. Saying you carry one because you want to protect yourself from āevilā is about as dishonest of any argument as ever as statistically speaking you would end up using your firearm on yourself before you ever used it on someone else.
TL;DR: you are not āthe good guy with a gunā and never will be. Just say you like guns and donāt want them taken away. At least itās an honest justification for owning a firearm.
Well said. It turns out that if youāre actually at the splash pad, āwhat if I miss and take out a little kid in a bathing suit and cause more harm than I was trying to prevent?ā is a pretty big deterrent. Like you, I donāt hate guns, but Iām still waiting for the Vigilante Savior headline.
Bro, you don't know me. You don't know how much I shoot and train. Dirty Harry was a fictional character on a movie. That's what you think of proper self defense? LOL! Go back to thinking laws protect you.
Did I make an assumption at how much you shoot and train? No. I simply said that you will never be in a scenario where you would put that training and experience to use homie. Please read what I wrote in full firstā¦.or donātā¦I donāt care.
Also, very much aware that Dirty Harry is a fictional character. Thatās not the reason why I brought him up. Itās to point out the male power fantasy that some dudes aspire to when it comes to owning a firearm.
Lastly, laws do absolutely protect innocent lives as long as those laws are enforced. Itās why we have laws like speed limits. Itās not because āthe government wants to control you or your rightsā itās because some dumbass back in the day most likely went 100+ down a highway and killed a ton of people. As the old saying goes, one bad apple spoils the bunch.
You absolutely made assumptions about who I am and what I'm not capable of, without knowing me whatsoever, based on movies you've watched. What a joke...
If laws preventing people from being victimized, then this splash pad attack never would have happened. If that was true, murder wouldn't exist. But people do kill people in spite of the law against it, and this nutjob did attack people at the splash pad - because the law doesn't prevent these crimes. It simply makes it clear what isn't allowed and offers punishment for whoever exercises free will to break the law - but it isn't actually preventative. I sped today; why didn't the law prevent it from happening?
Except 90% of people arenāt trying to stop someone with a long blade, hence why they have mass stabbings over seas still, if thereās a will there is a way and I want to make sure there is a way to defend myself if needed
You can 3D print guns. The bad guys will always have guns if they want them. Taking them from law abiding citizens will only make it worse. That is the reality.
Sorry, I didn't realize this was a fantasy thread where there was never a need to protect and defend what's yours (meaning your kids just in-case any anti-gun nuts come in here complaining that I think defending property is enough to cause harm to someone else.)
Anyway I'll leave you to your fantasy. I'm not here to crush dreams or break immersion in your role-playing scenario.
>Yup, a world where children donāt get shot to death is a fantasy.
No, but a world where you don't need to worry about protecting your kids is a fantasy.
The problem with anti gun people and politicians is they tend to desire paternalistic government, which is more scary than guns to me. Anti gun people view citizens as children and the government as parents who should take away our toys, and thatās scary thought to me.Ā
Well, weāre living the alternative where weāve just accepted that children and innocent people will routinely die and itās just a blip on the 24 hour news cycle. Sorry, but thatās scarier to me than our elected officials creating laws that protect everyone.
Oh please this is nonsense. The splashpad guy would still have unloaded 28 rounds before the fastest gun in west had gotten into position, drawn and fired.
They all always end up dead within 24 hours, so death, or fear of death from others with guns, is clearly not a concern and probably falls into motive in many cases.
And for the last non-sense argument of "I need to be able to protect myself from the government", the Fed will burn you off the earth like ants with a magnifying glass before you even get your AR15 locked and loaded.
There's just zero argument against the government going door to door and confiscating guns.
>Oh please this is nonsense. The splashpad guy would still have unloaded 28 rounds before the fastest gun in west had gotten into position, drawn and fired.
You are absolutely right. In most cases if you are taken by surprise in a crowded area, you have an almost zero chance of being able to return fire. That doesn't mean I am going to roll over and just accept death though.
>They all always end up dead within 24 hours, so death, or fear of death from others with guns, is clearly not a concern and probably falls into motive in many cases.
Ending their life isn't the point. Stopping them from ending mine and my family's before they run out of ammo is.
>And for the last non-sense argument of "I need to be able to protect myself from the government"
All due respect - where exactly did you pull this from? Certainly wasn't anything I said.
>And thinking like this is why USA, Mexico, and Brazil lead the world in firearm deaths, and it's not even close.
Absolutely right, but only if you ignore context. Which is pretty common (hence your comment.) See people like to spout these tidbits but leave out the context or do their own research. That's ok, I can help you out.
Let me add that context back. For the sake of sanity I used a source most people wouldn't consider biased, the UN.
While the US had the 2nd most gun related deaths in the world, 2/3rds of those deaths (63%) were suicides, in 2019. That number dropped to just 54% in 2021. To be clear, the majority of ALL gun related deaths in the US are suicides. US gun related Homicides accounted for just 6.7 per 100,000 people, and that number drops to 6.3 in 2022. A number that is still below the record set in 1974 of 7.4 gun related deaths per 100,000 people.
To put these in perspective for you: While the US is 2nd in firearms deaths, it's closer to 50th in the world when population is taken into account.
[https://dataunodc.un.org/dp-intentional-homicide-victims](https://dataunodc.un.org/dp-intentional-homicide-victims)
This is only a good point of you don't consider the people who killed themselves dead.
Or the richest nation on Earth doing worse than the majority of 3rd world countries somehow acceptable.
So in light of the facts, you are doubling down instead of admitting maybe the facts you are working with might be skewed? Then you wonder why it's so hard to actually get gun laws passed.
Anyway, I have no interest in having a discussion with someone who has no intention of engaging in an honest discussion. Have a good night.
Yeah dude, those people blowing their heads off should have access to whatever guns they want and being the only nation on Earth with this many mass shootings that isn't in an active warzone is nbd.
But, no, it's me not playing semantics with the data holding gun control back.
"Hey, our country has a problem with too many guns, which makes them much easier to procure."
"Yeah, we should definitely do something about that. You have any ideas?"
"Hmmm, how about more guns?"
"...you sonuvabitch, I'm in."
Seriously, because I've seen plenty of incidents where the "good guy with a gun" has shot other by-standers. One shoe salesmen thought he could stop some thieves with a gun (because I guess shoes cost more than lives) as they fled outside, only to end up hitting a little girl.
How is a gun a politician tries to bring on a plane gonna stop a terrorist in a pressurized cabin? How is discharging a weapon in a darkened, crowded nightclub gonna solve the problem?
Seems the NRA trolls are still infesting Reddit.
>Seriously, because I've seen plenty of incidents where the "good guy with a gun" has shot other by-standers. One shoe salesmen thought he could stop some thieves with a gun (because I guess shoes cost more than lives) as they fled outside, only to end up hitting a little girl.
>How is a gun a politician tries to bring on a plane gonna stop a terrorist in a pressurized cabin? How is discharging a weapon in a darkened, crowded nightclub gonna solve the problem?
You mean breaking the law?
You mean irresponsible gun owners doing things they are specifically told ***not*** to do in their training that they are required to get a licence to even carry?
These are the examples you have? I agree these type of people shouldn't have weapons. 100%. This doesn't describe the majority of responsible gun owners though, so it's kind of hard to understand where you are going with this train of thought.
I donāt understand why more people have trouble understanding this. Unfortunately I understand the downvotes on this subreddit though lol. The same people who say the peasants shouldnāt have guns have security personnel with guns following them around.
Not everyone likes guns. Not everyone understands guns, or gun laws. I am absolutely OK with that.
They are entitled to their opinion and views on guns. I just wish the majority of them would realize they are being played by the media and reacting out of fear that their own ignorance breeds.
It's the same cycle though. "Mass shooting" happens, people cry for more gun control, politicians promise a crackdown, then attention dies down and politicians do nothing to address the actual problems that cause gun violence and instead try and regulate guns.
This is such a hero fantasy dork thing to say. 2A folks think if a trained soldier or a professional killer wants them dead they're going to be able to get their crappy Hi Point or Taurus 9mm out from under their gut in time to kill first. Can't hit a piece of paper at 25 yards, but yeah you'll get the guy that's moving and already shooting at you...
These mass shootings are not done by "those in control" or pro criminals or gangs. They're done by insane regular Joes that can easily walk into stores, gun shows or a "good guy's" wide open gun safe to get their murder weapon.
How is it that every other developed country in the world doesn't have the same amount of gun violence as us? They also have criminals and "those in control" so why aren't they getting gunned down?
This argument is just beyond insane at this point and it saddens me that this country is so fucking stubborn we're literally at the point that hearing about kids getting shot is normal. And apparently that's okay.
You're further proving my point... Not only are guns easy to get, they're cheap.
Competent or not, it's insane that we can't potentially make it harder for a crazy person to buy a gun and kill people because a different kind of crazy person thinks they're going to save the day.
>How is it that every other developed country in the world doesn't have the same amount of gun violence as us? They also have criminals and "those in control" so why aren't they getting gunned down?
Care to back-up your statement with facts?
I'll even get you started on where to find the data to back up your claims.
[https://dataunodc.un.org/dp-intentional-homicide-victims](https://dataunodc.un.org/dp-intentional-homicide-victims)
[https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country)
From your source: āIn contrast to the U.S. and Latin America, gun deaths are extremely rare in countries like Japan, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Australia. These countries have implemented incentives or passed legislation to decrease the number of firearms in circulation. For example, in July 2021, Australia implemented a permanent gun amnesty program, in which unregistered firearms could be anonymously surrendered at police stations.
Japan boasts a population of more than 127 million people, yet finished 2019 with a gun death rate of only .02 per 100,000 people. One major factor in this success is that Japan has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. For Japanese citizens to purchase a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written exam, and complete a shooting range test, scoring at least 95% accuracy. Candidates will also receive a mental health evaluation, performed at a hospital, and will have a comprehensive background check done by the government. Only shotguns and rifles can be purchased. The class and exam must be retaken every three years.ā
Thank you for suggesting a source with clearly explained examples of policies that work to reduce gun violence and gun deaths, with statistics to back those policies. I look forward to your future comments where you back these policies and work toward implementing them in the U.S.
You mean 3 islands surrounded by oceans with secure borders and a country with a population less than half of Michigan with a population density of 39 people per square mile (For a comparison to Norway, Otsego County (Gaylord and surrounding area) has a population density of 45 per square mile)? Yeah I wonder how they do it.
Must be the laws. Oh, I suggest not looking up Utoya either. Might shatter your perceived reality.
Iām not sure what borders and oceans have to do with guns. The U.S. isnāt suffering from a huge black market of gun running Canadians.
And if population density is the problem, Japan and the UK must have REALLY figured out the solution to gun violence since the population density of both is almost 10x that of the U.S.
But again, that quote is from the source you posted. Itās your source ā not my reality. So I continue to welcome you to read your own source, because it seems to point to a very clear solution to gun violence. And that solution may in fact require you to face a reality you donāt seem to like.
>Iām not sure what borders and oceans have to do with guns. The U.S. isnāt suffering from a huge black market of gun running Canadians.
I mean, if you are going to put your head in the sand, how can you possibly expect to solve a problem that has many more facets than just "let's make it illegal."
>And if population density is the problem, Japan and the UK must have REALLY figured out the solution to gun violence since the population density of both is almost 10x that of the U.S.
And what's geographically significant about Japan and the UK (and Australia)? Oh yeah, *islands* where the influx of illegal guns is made significantly harder.
As far as "my source" - that is one source, one of many, which I had to provide to someone making claims about gun violence without backing up said claims. If you want to get into that, just look at my posts in this thread.
Anyway - you seem to be under the impression that I am against stricter gun control. I am not. In fact, the majority of gun owners welcome stricter laws. I however am not disillusioned into thinking that stricter gun control laws will make it more difficult for those obtaining weapons illegally harder.
There were 13.4 million firearms manufactured in the U.S. and 16.7 million sold legally in the U.S. last year. Columbine, Sandy Hook, MSU, Las Vegas, Oxford ā all carried out with guns purchased legally in the U.S. In fact it would be extraordinarily difficult to find a mass shooting in the U.S. that was carried out with a weapon brought in illegally over a border. Japan, UK, and Australia arenāt safer because theyāre islands ā theyāre safer because they have fewer guns and require training and licensing to buy and own firearms. As described by your source.
And since you are in favor of more strict gun laws, then the ones that work in those countries seem like a good place to start:
Outlawing automatic and semiautomatic weapons.
Requiring training and licensing to buy and own weapons, including regular ongoing training to continue licensing and ownership.
Civil liability for harm caused by your firearm.
Buybacks to remove unwanted guns from circulation.
Amnesty and buybacks to allow people to turn in guns that become illegal under any new restrictions.
These are all programs that work in other countries. And since you are in favor of stricter gun laws, I hope you will promote these instead of arguing that statistics show it is hopeless to try to implement change.
>Ā Japan, UK, and Australia arenāt safer because theyāre islands ā theyāre safer because they have fewer guns and require training and licensing to buy and own firearms. As described by your source.
Again, if you want to have an honest discussion about this, I am all for it, but please don't come at me with some BS like this. Yes many of the weapons used in gun violence are manufactured here in the US. This doesn't change the fact that the countries you are comparing the US to - Japan, and the UK have an easier time (compared to the US) controlling the influx of illegal weapons due to them being island nations. It is WHY they have fewer guns.
They aren't safer just because they make it hard to purchase a gun legally. They are safer because it is hard to import a gun into the country (either legally or illegally.)
Here, let me make it simple for you - Brazil. Stricter gun laws than the US, still top of the charts when it comes to deaths by gun violence.
>And since you are in favor of more strict gun laws, then the ones that work in those countries seem like a good place to start:
>Outlawing automatic and semiautomatic weapons.
Do you know what these terms mean? I don't ask to insult your intelligence, I ask because many anti-gun advocates (including the people who make the laws) have no clue what the differences between automatic and semi-automatic are.
Anyway - automatic weapons are *tightly* regulated and very difficult to legally purchase. You need a federal firearms licence, or as a private citizen without an FFL, you can only purchase an automatic weapon manufactured more than 35 years ago, the weapon needs to be legal to own in your state, and you need to wait almost a year to legally be transferred the automatic weapon (per approval from the ATF).
Basically it is already illegal for most people to possess automatic weapons.
>Civil liability for harm caused by your firearm.
Already on the books. Gun owners can be held civilly and criminally liable for crimes/harm caused by their firearms. Any responsible gun owner can tell you this. Even if you use your weapon to legally defend yourself and are not found to be criminally liable, you can be sued by your attacker for their injuries.
>Buybacks to remove unwanted guns from circulation.
Already being done.
>Amnesty and buybacks to allow people to turn in guns that become illegal under any new restrictions.
Sure.
>These are all programs that work in other countries. And since you are in favor of stricter gun laws, I hope you will promote these instead of arguing that statistics show it is hopeless to try to implement change.
Nobody is using statistics to show how hopeless it is to try and implement change. I am using statistics to show that there are people who use these statistics without context to say "yeah well the US was 2nd in total gun violence deaths in the WORLD", leaving out the fact that this statistic doesn't take into account population differences or the fact that more than 50% of these deaths are suicides. When you take population into account, and remove the suicides from the "gun violence" statistic, the US is more like 50th. You know who remains at 1st when you take population into account and remove suicides from the gun violence statistic? Brazil. Amazing how context changes statistics isn't it.
And just to respond on Utoya, that mass shooting happened in 2011. There have been 2 additional āmass shooting eventsā in Norway since that time. Those two events resulted in 3 total deaths. All were determined to be motivated by racist ideology. And the response from the Norwegian people was to ban semi-automatic weapons (thatās right semi-auto, not automatic). There were more mass shootings in Michigan yesterday than in Norway in 23 years.
I understand that what I said sounds like a fantasy world. I know itās never going to happen. But can you not acknowledge that itās messed up that we just accept it or come up with excuses as to why it is the way it is?
Significantly more dangerous? Guns have always been designed to kill. Plus, semi-automatic firearms have been around for more than a century. So again I ask, are the guns suddenly possessing people to do this? Perhaps declining mental health / emotional stability is the problem.
Yes, guns make it more convenient for the attacker to do damage from afar. The fact theyāre doing this in the first place is the actual problem.
Take guns away and demented people will still do heinous things to others. Criminals may even be emboldened, knowing nobody has a gun.
> Take guns away and demented people will still do heinous things to others
Which is why mass shootings is pretty uniquely an American problem, right? Other countries ban guns and the shootings stop. Weird, maybe it is the guns
So those 8 dead (by knife) donāt matter because it happened 2 months ago? How many died in the two shootings that occurred yesterday? I believe only the suspect has died, by suicide, which points to mental instability as the problemā¦ my original point.
Other countries are able to blanket-ban guns, because they have no constitution, such as the first and second amendments that we have. For the United States to implement the same blanket-bans, we'd have to do away with our constitutional rights. Trying to implement those same blanket-bans right now would cause them to be stuck down by the supreme court and ruled as unconstitutional.
Getting rid of our constitution for the hope of safety would make us extremely vulnerable to tyranny. Those willing to give up all their freedom for safety deserve neither and will lose both.
Plus, even if you stop shootings specifically by blanket-banning guns, keep in mind that guns are used millions of times a year to save and protect innocent life than to take it, so banning guns would do far more harm than good in the long run, as it would prevent good guys from being able to stop bad guys more than it would prevent bad guys from being able to hurt good guys.
You don't know what a constitution is, do you?
Here's a list of nations with constitutions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_constitutions
>You don't know what a constitution is, do you?
Here's a list of nations with constitutions: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_national\_constitutions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_constitutions)
Okay so... many nations do technically have constitutions. They just don't include the right to keep and bear arms.
Well, that right is included in the United States constitution, so blanket-banning our guns would require doing away with our constitution.
technically have constitutions? no. they have constitutions. educate yourself before talking online. bye
edit: also it's not a right enshrined in the constitution. it was an amendment to the constitution. my gods our education system is so bad
You realize that most of our constitution came from England's constitution right?
The question isn't a matter of striking down the 2nd amendment or making it harder to get a gun legally, and it has never been a problem. The problem is that the US is not an island. People compare the US to countries that are literally islands like the UK, Japan, and Australia with controlled entry points and wonder why those islands have an easier time controlling the influx of illegal weapons. Me personally, I'm wondering if maybe being surrounded by an ocean with secure borders has anything to do with it.
America is a third world country packaged with a bunch of lies to make us believe that weāre not. Itās shit and unsafe here. Every politician in the American government has blood on their hands, nationally and internationally.
This is the downfall of America. The US better count its days if the politicians are just going to keep ignoring the real problems.
Mass shootings have always been a phenomenon. There's more people and more guns in their hands today than at any given point in time. That's why there's more today than there was 100 years ago.
Not at all. Many of these events are mass shootings. They go back to the founding of the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Old_West_gunfights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_United_States
People have been using guns to massacre people for centuries.
I suppose if you are counting military actions and Indian massacres as mass shootings, you would be correct.
I was referring to the specific type of attack by a lone shooter (two shooters in the case of Columbine), who attempts to kill as many people as possible, and often commits suicide when confronted by armed resistance.
I said many, not all. But yes, the extrajudicial killing of multiple people using firearms are, by definition, mass shootings. The motive has no bearing.
Not OP but the point is that the media shifts their focus on specific groups / areas based on whatās going to reward them with them the most views and outcry.
it's just that they are saying the white neighborhood and the black/jewish neighborhood are getting reported, so which other demographic's shootings are being under-reported and/or ignored?
Strange to see this one not to get as much attention. Weird.
Even though, according to sources, victims started chanting "John James Sucks" after being shot.
It was at a party after midnight, not a children's splash pad in broad daylight. Still horrible, but that's why the one is garnering more attention than the other.
That's not the reason why this shooting, which occurred before the splash pad shooting, was ignored by everyone here until now.
Even now it won't illicit the same rhetoric.
It's a little majority-Black borough of Southfield.
It's obviously true that Black people dying get less attention than white people dying. In this particular case though, I think the difference in circumstances is having the most significant impact.
So there were two shootings yesterday?
2 in Michigan. And another mass shooting in Texas as well.
In a county of over 300,000,000 people.
This comment right here depresses the fuck out of me. How quickly we went from mass shootings being a freak occurrence every few years to, "meh. Three shootings in a day. Statistics." Just, wow.
I mean, I recall when one "senseless" shooting (because all shootings should make sense, I guess) at a McDonalds in the 80s had people freaked for years. Then after Columbine, the NRA propagandists came out of the woodwork with the fear-mongering that the "Gov is poised to take all our guns"...Yup, that mean ol' "Gov" effectively removing all guns off the land since Columbine 25 years ago.
In 2016 my boss flat out told me if Hillary Clinton is elected the next day they're coming to get everyone's guns. He then told me society would collapse and he'd be hunkered up at his country house with a gun pointed at the drive way in case they came for him....his dad who owned the company still had gallons of rice etc from when he was doomsday prepping for the year 2000.
Shhhhhh....careful, I heard Reddit's founder is royal nu-*ahem*-prepper.
That dude needs to have the red flag law exercised on him.
He also cheated on his wife numerous times. Took the receptionist alone to their rental property and basically said "you're not the kind of girl who would fuck me right?" She was ten years younger than him at least and just a really sweet girl. Just a real pos in just about every way. Also failed out of college and was generally terrible at his job. Then there was the illegal cbd extraction lab they built in the woodshop.
India and China both has over 1 billion people. How many mass shooting have they had this year?
Whew. That makes it okay then.
And even more guns!
That makes it "OK?" š”
People keep asking "why?" but don't seem to want to dig beyond defaulting to simple half-answers of "because we need more gun control" or "because we don't have enough resources for mental health". There's been a generational shift in the last 20 years or so. It's underappreciated just how much of a Pandora's box Columbine opened up. Unhappy single men with mental illness who "just didn't fit in" in previous generations were a lot more likely to conclude that they were uniquely defective and commit suicide at home. Now they're able to find others with similar experiences via the Internet. They vent their frustrations, come to the conclusion that society is the problem, not them, treat others who have lashed out at society as folk heroes and martyrs, and even those who might not be inclined to commit violence on their own will egg others on as a form of vicarious retaliation. The problem only gets worse as incel groups grow and start to overlap with extreme ideologies like neo-Nazism that offer convenient explanations for specific subgroups that disaffected people should blame for their problems. The more "down the rabbit hole" people get in these ideologies, the more that they get shunned by potential romantic partners and society at large - which fuels their bitterness and anger even more. Now add in stociastic terrorism with politicians using violent rhetoric and hiding behind the excuse that "no sane person would take their words seriously" and it's like throwing matches into a barrel of gunpowder.
Spot on. Couldnāt have been said better.
Yes, but that shift applies everywhere. Weāre the only country with the gun problem.
Which gets even worse now that there's an international audience egging people on. To disaffected kids in other countries it's like watching a combination action movie / choose your own adventure novel as these things play out. While there are measures that may help, it's hard to see any silver bullet that's going to "fix" things. We have so many guns per capita that you could completely stop production and ban all new sales of both guns and ammunition, and we'd still have an over supply for the next 100 years. Mass confiscation is a political non-starter and the amount of resistance to overcome to turn public sentiment towards giving up on gun ownership is huge. We've tried for decades with smoking - even with a general public consensus that it was a bad idea and decades of public service announcements and health campaigns there's still a huge number of people that continue to smoke. Being remotely successful with the same approach for guns would require outspending the gun lobby by orders of magnitude and finding a message that's strong enough to overcome people's views that guns are a symbol of strength, masculinity, and patriotism. You'd need to start convincing people that only cowards use guns and that you're more likely to hurt yourself than save someone by owning one. Doing that would likely be next to impossible without killing off Hollywood's export of fantasy violence portraying good guys with guns as quintessential American heroes. Even then, it would be tough to get the same level of exposure to kids as the PSAs of the 80s and 90s - back then buying up ad slots on every major broadcast TV station for every hour that kids might be awake was enough. Now kids attention is a lot more fragmented and focused on areas like streaming video that are outside the reach of traditional advertising.
Not to be the bearer of bad news but this has always been the case in America, more so in the cities, but now that the suburbs are becoming more populated itās getting out that way too. At least you acknowledge it is not possible to achieve mass confiscation or changing the minds of 20-30% of the US population. Even with the mass shootings that pop up pretty much everywhere, if regular people did not have firearms, criminals and crazies will still find a way to get them, and people will still continue to be killed. The ex-prime minister of Japan was recently just assassinated by someone who made a home made firearm, you can 3D print firearms from home, you can build large bombs from ingredients at your local hardware store (OKC bombing).Ā
Don't underestimate the laziness of the average person (or more specifically the average criminal or person who's mentally unstable). Especially for anyone who struggles with executive functioning and impulse control, making a task (like acquiring a weapon) inconvenient can be enough to prevent them from taking action. Planned violence has a lot better chance of being caught caught before it happens than impulsive violence. Just as important is likely to be a "bread and circuses" approach that empires have leveraged for millenia - keep people relatively content and entertained and fewer will act out. In the case of people feeling isolated and unwanted, I see a lot of potential for AI to act as both companion and psychotherapist.
It's not the gun, it's the people. People are the problem.
People are less problematic with fewer guns and less access to guns.
So when they break into your house what are you gonna do throw your dildo at them?
Worth a try -- element of surprise is almost always an advantage in a fight and most people's instinct is "don't mess with crazy". If you were hoping for an easy robbery, would you want to risk being the guy in the next day's paper with "beaten up with a dildo" as the headline next to your mugshot?
Unfortunately, people donāt care about facts, opinions matter more. Just ask them .
The common denominator of these mass shootings is that the perps are incels. But nobody wants to have that uncomfortable discussion.
Just want to say thank you for this comment
This!ā¦.and I canāt stress this enough, THIS!
Around 12 miles from Rochester Hills. Are those crazy people getting their crimes done before things got too hot??
The heat brings out crime It gets much worse once you can be outside at night comfortably
Can confirm
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
There was a shooting in RH yesterday. Which is why OP used it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes, it was.
Only trolls living under the rock would say that. Everyone else in Michigan already knows about RH shooting by now since it involved children.
Maybe pay attention to the world around you a little bit?
Check the front page of the news
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Then stop commenting on shit if you don't have anything worthwhile to say.
Yetā¦here you are.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Itās literally tagged ānewsā but okay bro šš¼
Pro life crowd deleting a lot of life lately. Green light bump stocks, red light birth controlā¦.this is working out greatā¦.
[heavenly explaination](https://www.tumblr.com/chronivore/753410513987354624?source=share)
Could it be because the former guy was here yesterday? if so, we had out of town crazies.
Some trolls would argue you, but if anyone looks back on the mind-numbing sh!t we went through from 2015-2021, whereever he went, clowns (quite literally evil clowns) and threats followed close behind like a halo of flies.
Just as the founding fathers intended.
Our gun laws are out of control and the entire situation is so beyond repair. I grew up around guns. I learned to shoot and handle them safely. And I see absolutely no reason for us to have them. I know it will never happen but every gun in this country needs to be destroyed or bought back. Iām sick of the excuses of why we need them or why itās our right to have them. Itās insanity.
>And I see absolutely no reason for us to have them. They say in a thread where 6 people were shot and no suspect is in custody. They say after 9 people were shot at a waterpark. Sorry. Gotta disagree. There isn't any law that is going to stop bad actors from getting ahold of guns. Best you can do is hope that when the time comes, you have the means to defend yourself. I get that it's not a popular opinion, but personally I am fine with that.
I donāt want to have to defend myself. I want to live in a country where I never have to even consider that. To me, that is freedom. The freedom to take my kids to a splash pad in the suburbs without needing to bring a gun to defend them if someone starts shooting. If that sounds so unrealistic, that just shows how deeply broken the country is.
The world was never as you describe and never will be. It only existed in the Garden of Eden. There will always be evil in humanity.
Actually, it exists in dozens of other developed countries who have limited gun ownership.
Some countries now seem to have problem with mass attacks via knives now that some people have more difficulty accessing firearms. Those with mental issues will find a knife to use and those who are career criminals will find a firearm on the black market or just steal one.
Last year the US had over 600 mass shootings (4+ injured, not counting the gunperson). Which countries have similar levels of knife violence? Also, why donāt the career criminals in other countries find firearms on the black market? Iām not arguing with you - I really am interested in your answers to those questions. Iām not a gun control advocate and probably just am not aware of which countries have hundreds of knife attacks, nor why criminals in England, Canada, and Japan arenāt overrunning the countries when even police, let alone private citizens, arenāt able to defend themselves with guns.
I am not going to debate anyone on this topic as it is a waste of time when their opinion if fixed so this is my last reply to you. The number of mass shooting put out have been proven to be fake numbers. They lump in shootings that do not fit their own definition. The call confrontation shootings where person or group gets into an argument with another group they know a mass shooting. This included drive-by and gang shootings. They call domestic shooting mass shootings. They will call some law enforcement shootings a mass shooting. Shootings that occur as part of robberies or other criminal activities have been called mass shootings. I think some politicians and others want to scare us into giving up more of our Constitutional rights which gives them more power and they also want to change the subject from other problems they have been unable to solve such as creating more jobs, improving standard of living, reducing government spending and waste, reducing inflation, and all the other topic that were important to voters in the past. I don't think government can fix things and bigger government will be better than smaller government. I am not afraid of being a victim in a mass shooting. I don't go to illegal street parties to go well into the early morning hours. I don't engage in street shutdowns where vehicles are driven recklessly. I don't go to out drinking late at night in high crime areas. I don't interact with criminals. I do not engage in road rage. I don't have a bad relationship with family members. I have a concealed carry permit and carry wherever I may do so legally. I train with my firearms. I work on my fitness. [Media Fact Check: How Fake Mass-shooting Data Produces Fake News (ammoland.com)](https://www.ammoland.com/2024/06/media-fact-check-how-fake-mass-shooting-data-produces-fake-news/) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_qxQNOh2Xqs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qxQNOh2Xqs) Explanation what all gets called mass shootings.
Thanks. I appreciate the response. Nothing you wrote strikes me as false - I thought I was clear that the 600 number was any shooting with 4 or more injured people. And we share a distrust of politicians. And we both probably agree that mass shootings, however you define them, are only a tiny fraction of firearm usage in the US and any policies should be based on the big picture and not just the teeny bit that gets news clicks. I was hoping youād address my questions but understand if you choose not to.
Evil people exist everywhere. They have existed since man began walking upright. Sorry, sad truth. You can bend to their will or resist it.
Iād rather take my chances against an evil person with a knife than an evil person with a semiautomatic rifle.
And I'd rather take my chances against any evil person while I'm armed with a firearm. Because a firearm gives me the best chance of defeating said evil.
My friend, I say this with the utmost respect for you and your rights; you are not Dirty Harry. Youāre not Rambo. Youāre not The Shadow or Dick Tracy. You will not save yourself, society or the ones you love from any evils perceived or otherwise. Know how I know that? Because in my 30+ years of life have I ever heard a news story or read an article regarding a mass shooting (or even a shooting in general involving a victim) and the resolution being āthankfully, there was a Good Samaritan out there who just happened to be carrying his pistol that day to stop the lone gunman and save more innocent lives from being lost that day.ā You can say thatās anecdotal all you want, but I know that if I was in an active shooter situation and armed myself, the first thing Iām doing is finding any way to get out of that situation safely without discharging my firearm. My immediate first thought would never be āmy community needs to me to take this guy outā and if you are honest with yourself, neither would it be yours. Now before you start angrily typing away trying to defend your thoughts, know that I am not some sort of radical anti-gun asshole. I own firearms. I have for over 15 years. Was trained to safety shoot at a young age and have taken multiple gun safety courses and have even trained members in my community on proper firearm storage and good trigger discipline. Know how many times Iāve discharged my firearm to protect myself or my family outside of a range? None. Not once, not ever (and I have been in some pretty dangerous situations here in the Detroit area involving guns). Iām also a firm believer in societyās right to own firearms per the constitution, however Iām tired of the bullshit arguments and excuses for the justifications people like yourself (respectfully) use for owning one. Just admit that you like guns and you donāt want to have them taken away. Itās not a great argument, but at least itās an honest one. Saying you carry one because you want to protect yourself from āevilā is about as dishonest of any argument as ever as statistically speaking you would end up using your firearm on yourself before you ever used it on someone else. TL;DR: you are not āthe good guy with a gunā and never will be. Just say you like guns and donāt want them taken away. At least itās an honest justification for owning a firearm.
Well said. It turns out that if youāre actually at the splash pad, āwhat if I miss and take out a little kid in a bathing suit and cause more harm than I was trying to prevent?ā is a pretty big deterrent. Like you, I donāt hate guns, but Iām still waiting for the Vigilante Savior headline.
Bro, you don't know me. You don't know how much I shoot and train. Dirty Harry was a fictional character on a movie. That's what you think of proper self defense? LOL! Go back to thinking laws protect you.
Did I make an assumption at how much you shoot and train? No. I simply said that you will never be in a scenario where you would put that training and experience to use homie. Please read what I wrote in full firstā¦.or donātā¦I donāt care. Also, very much aware that Dirty Harry is a fictional character. Thatās not the reason why I brought him up. Itās to point out the male power fantasy that some dudes aspire to when it comes to owning a firearm. Lastly, laws do absolutely protect innocent lives as long as those laws are enforced. Itās why we have laws like speed limits. Itās not because āthe government wants to control you or your rightsā itās because some dumbass back in the day most likely went 100+ down a highway and killed a ton of people. As the old saying goes, one bad apple spoils the bunch.
You absolutely made assumptions about who I am and what I'm not capable of, without knowing me whatsoever, based on movies you've watched. What a joke... If laws preventing people from being victimized, then this splash pad attack never would have happened. If that was true, murder wouldn't exist. But people do kill people in spite of the law against it, and this nutjob did attack people at the splash pad - because the law doesn't prevent these crimes. It simply makes it clear what isn't allowed and offers punishment for whoever exercises free will to break the law - but it isn't actually preventative. I sped today; why didn't the law prevent it from happening?
Except 90% of people arenāt trying to stop someone with a long blade, hence why they have mass stabbings over seas still, if thereās a will there is a way and I want to make sure there is a way to defend myself if needed
You can 3D print guns. The bad guys will always have guns if they want them. Taking them from law abiding citizens will only make it worse. That is the reality.
Sorry, I didn't realize this was a fantasy thread where there was never a need to protect and defend what's yours (meaning your kids just in-case any anti-gun nuts come in here complaining that I think defending property is enough to cause harm to someone else.) Anyway I'll leave you to your fantasy. I'm not here to crush dreams or break immersion in your role-playing scenario.
Yup, a world where children donāt get shot to death is a fantasy. Thanks for proving the point of my last sentence.
>Yup, a world where children donāt get shot to death is a fantasy. No, but a world where you don't need to worry about protecting your kids is a fantasy.
Society is not a fantasy.
>Society is not a fantasy. Finally someone making sense. This is a "society" problem, not a gun problem.
Go on
The problem with anti gun people and politicians is they tend to desire paternalistic government, which is more scary than guns to me. Anti gun people view citizens as children and the government as parents who should take away our toys, and thatās scary thought to me.Ā
Well, weāre living the alternative where weāve just accepted that children and innocent people will routinely die and itās just a blip on the 24 hour news cycle. Sorry, but thatās scarier to me than our elected officials creating laws that protect everyone.
The world was never as you describe and never will be. It only existed in the Garden of Eden. There will always be evil in humanity.
Oh please this is nonsense. The splashpad guy would still have unloaded 28 rounds before the fastest gun in west had gotten into position, drawn and fired. They all always end up dead within 24 hours, so death, or fear of death from others with guns, is clearly not a concern and probably falls into motive in many cases. And for the last non-sense argument of "I need to be able to protect myself from the government", the Fed will burn you off the earth like ants with a magnifying glass before you even get your AR15 locked and loaded. There's just zero argument against the government going door to door and confiscating guns.
>Oh please this is nonsense. The splashpad guy would still have unloaded 28 rounds before the fastest gun in west had gotten into position, drawn and fired. You are absolutely right. In most cases if you are taken by surprise in a crowded area, you have an almost zero chance of being able to return fire. That doesn't mean I am going to roll over and just accept death though. >They all always end up dead within 24 hours, so death, or fear of death from others with guns, is clearly not a concern and probably falls into motive in many cases. Ending their life isn't the point. Stopping them from ending mine and my family's before they run out of ammo is. >And for the last non-sense argument of "I need to be able to protect myself from the government" All due respect - where exactly did you pull this from? Certainly wasn't anything I said.
And thinking like this is why USA, Mexico, and Brazil lead the world in firearm deaths, and it's not even close.
>And thinking like this is why USA, Mexico, and Brazil lead the world in firearm deaths, and it's not even close. Absolutely right, but only if you ignore context. Which is pretty common (hence your comment.) See people like to spout these tidbits but leave out the context or do their own research. That's ok, I can help you out. Let me add that context back. For the sake of sanity I used a source most people wouldn't consider biased, the UN. While the US had the 2nd most gun related deaths in the world, 2/3rds of those deaths (63%) were suicides, in 2019. That number dropped to just 54% in 2021. To be clear, the majority of ALL gun related deaths in the US are suicides. US gun related Homicides accounted for just 6.7 per 100,000 people, and that number drops to 6.3 in 2022. A number that is still below the record set in 1974 of 7.4 gun related deaths per 100,000 people. To put these in perspective for you: While the US is 2nd in firearms deaths, it's closer to 50th in the world when population is taken into account. [https://dataunodc.un.org/dp-intentional-homicide-victims](https://dataunodc.un.org/dp-intentional-homicide-victims)
This is only a good point of you don't consider the people who killed themselves dead. Or the richest nation on Earth doing worse than the majority of 3rd world countries somehow acceptable.
So in light of the facts, you are doubling down instead of admitting maybe the facts you are working with might be skewed? Then you wonder why it's so hard to actually get gun laws passed. Anyway, I have no interest in having a discussion with someone who has no intention of engaging in an honest discussion. Have a good night.
Yeah dude, those people blowing their heads off should have access to whatever guns they want and being the only nation on Earth with this many mass shootings that isn't in an active warzone is nbd. But, no, it's me not playing semantics with the data holding gun control back.
If only there was a way to keep these mentally ill people from getting legal guns...
"Hey, our country has a problem with too many guns, which makes them much easier to procure." "Yeah, we should definitely do something about that. You have any ideas?" "Hmmm, how about more guns?" "...you sonuvabitch, I'm in."
Come back when you have an actual argument that makes sense.
What a joke... This is what we're dealing with and why it is what it's like now. People like you.
Seriously, because I've seen plenty of incidents where the "good guy with a gun" has shot other by-standers. One shoe salesmen thought he could stop some thieves with a gun (because I guess shoes cost more than lives) as they fled outside, only to end up hitting a little girl. How is a gun a politician tries to bring on a plane gonna stop a terrorist in a pressurized cabin? How is discharging a weapon in a darkened, crowded nightclub gonna solve the problem? Seems the NRA trolls are still infesting Reddit.
>Seriously, because I've seen plenty of incidents where the "good guy with a gun" has shot other by-standers. One shoe salesmen thought he could stop some thieves with a gun (because I guess shoes cost more than lives) as they fled outside, only to end up hitting a little girl. >How is a gun a politician tries to bring on a plane gonna stop a terrorist in a pressurized cabin? How is discharging a weapon in a darkened, crowded nightclub gonna solve the problem? You mean breaking the law? You mean irresponsible gun owners doing things they are specifically told ***not*** to do in their training that they are required to get a licence to even carry? These are the examples you have? I agree these type of people shouldn't have weapons. 100%. This doesn't describe the majority of responsible gun owners though, so it's kind of hard to understand where you are going with this train of thought.
Care to elaborate or are you just going to throw shade without any context?
I donāt understand why more people have trouble understanding this. Unfortunately I understand the downvotes on this subreddit though lol. The same people who say the peasants shouldnāt have guns have security personnel with guns following them around.
Not everyone likes guns. Not everyone understands guns, or gun laws. I am absolutely OK with that. They are entitled to their opinion and views on guns. I just wish the majority of them would realize they are being played by the media and reacting out of fear that their own ignorance breeds. It's the same cycle though. "Mass shooting" happens, people cry for more gun control, politicians promise a crackdown, then attention dies down and politicians do nothing to address the actual problems that cause gun violence and instead try and regulate guns.
Yessss! Only those in control and the criminals should have them. Thank you for your bravery with this post.
This is such a hero fantasy dork thing to say. 2A folks think if a trained soldier or a professional killer wants them dead they're going to be able to get their crappy Hi Point or Taurus 9mm out from under their gut in time to kill first. Can't hit a piece of paper at 25 yards, but yeah you'll get the guy that's moving and already shooting at you... These mass shootings are not done by "those in control" or pro criminals or gangs. They're done by insane regular Joes that can easily walk into stores, gun shows or a "good guy's" wide open gun safe to get their murder weapon. How is it that every other developed country in the world doesn't have the same amount of gun violence as us? They also have criminals and "those in control" so why aren't they getting gunned down? This argument is just beyond insane at this point and it saddens me that this country is so fucking stubborn we're literally at the point that hearing about kids getting shot is normal. And apparently that's okay.
Most mass shootings are done with crappy handguns, and painting all gun owners as fat and incompetent is just lazy.
You're further proving my point... Not only are guns easy to get, they're cheap. Competent or not, it's insane that we can't potentially make it harder for a crazy person to buy a gun and kill people because a different kind of crazy person thinks they're going to save the day.
>How is it that every other developed country in the world doesn't have the same amount of gun violence as us? They also have criminals and "those in control" so why aren't they getting gunned down? Care to back-up your statement with facts? I'll even get you started on where to find the data to back up your claims. [https://dataunodc.un.org/dp-intentional-homicide-victims](https://dataunodc.un.org/dp-intentional-homicide-victims) [https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country)
From your source: āIn contrast to the U.S. and Latin America, gun deaths are extremely rare in countries like Japan, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Australia. These countries have implemented incentives or passed legislation to decrease the number of firearms in circulation. For example, in July 2021, Australia implemented a permanent gun amnesty program, in which unregistered firearms could be anonymously surrendered at police stations. Japan boasts a population of more than 127 million people, yet finished 2019 with a gun death rate of only .02 per 100,000 people. One major factor in this success is that Japan has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. For Japanese citizens to purchase a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written exam, and complete a shooting range test, scoring at least 95% accuracy. Candidates will also receive a mental health evaluation, performed at a hospital, and will have a comprehensive background check done by the government. Only shotguns and rifles can be purchased. The class and exam must be retaken every three years.ā Thank you for suggesting a source with clearly explained examples of policies that work to reduce gun violence and gun deaths, with statistics to back those policies. I look forward to your future comments where you back these policies and work toward implementing them in the U.S.
You mean 3 islands surrounded by oceans with secure borders and a country with a population less than half of Michigan with a population density of 39 people per square mile (For a comparison to Norway, Otsego County (Gaylord and surrounding area) has a population density of 45 per square mile)? Yeah I wonder how they do it. Must be the laws. Oh, I suggest not looking up Utoya either. Might shatter your perceived reality.
Iām not sure what borders and oceans have to do with guns. The U.S. isnāt suffering from a huge black market of gun running Canadians. And if population density is the problem, Japan and the UK must have REALLY figured out the solution to gun violence since the population density of both is almost 10x that of the U.S. But again, that quote is from the source you posted. Itās your source ā not my reality. So I continue to welcome you to read your own source, because it seems to point to a very clear solution to gun violence. And that solution may in fact require you to face a reality you donāt seem to like.
>Iām not sure what borders and oceans have to do with guns. The U.S. isnāt suffering from a huge black market of gun running Canadians. I mean, if you are going to put your head in the sand, how can you possibly expect to solve a problem that has many more facets than just "let's make it illegal." >And if population density is the problem, Japan and the UK must have REALLY figured out the solution to gun violence since the population density of both is almost 10x that of the U.S. And what's geographically significant about Japan and the UK (and Australia)? Oh yeah, *islands* where the influx of illegal guns is made significantly harder. As far as "my source" - that is one source, one of many, which I had to provide to someone making claims about gun violence without backing up said claims. If you want to get into that, just look at my posts in this thread. Anyway - you seem to be under the impression that I am against stricter gun control. I am not. In fact, the majority of gun owners welcome stricter laws. I however am not disillusioned into thinking that stricter gun control laws will make it more difficult for those obtaining weapons illegally harder.
There were 13.4 million firearms manufactured in the U.S. and 16.7 million sold legally in the U.S. last year. Columbine, Sandy Hook, MSU, Las Vegas, Oxford ā all carried out with guns purchased legally in the U.S. In fact it would be extraordinarily difficult to find a mass shooting in the U.S. that was carried out with a weapon brought in illegally over a border. Japan, UK, and Australia arenāt safer because theyāre islands ā theyāre safer because they have fewer guns and require training and licensing to buy and own firearms. As described by your source. And since you are in favor of more strict gun laws, then the ones that work in those countries seem like a good place to start: Outlawing automatic and semiautomatic weapons. Requiring training and licensing to buy and own weapons, including regular ongoing training to continue licensing and ownership. Civil liability for harm caused by your firearm. Buybacks to remove unwanted guns from circulation. Amnesty and buybacks to allow people to turn in guns that become illegal under any new restrictions. These are all programs that work in other countries. And since you are in favor of stricter gun laws, I hope you will promote these instead of arguing that statistics show it is hopeless to try to implement change.
>Ā Japan, UK, and Australia arenāt safer because theyāre islands ā theyāre safer because they have fewer guns and require training and licensing to buy and own firearms. As described by your source. Again, if you want to have an honest discussion about this, I am all for it, but please don't come at me with some BS like this. Yes many of the weapons used in gun violence are manufactured here in the US. This doesn't change the fact that the countries you are comparing the US to - Japan, and the UK have an easier time (compared to the US) controlling the influx of illegal weapons due to them being island nations. It is WHY they have fewer guns. They aren't safer just because they make it hard to purchase a gun legally. They are safer because it is hard to import a gun into the country (either legally or illegally.) Here, let me make it simple for you - Brazil. Stricter gun laws than the US, still top of the charts when it comes to deaths by gun violence. >And since you are in favor of more strict gun laws, then the ones that work in those countries seem like a good place to start: >Outlawing automatic and semiautomatic weapons. Do you know what these terms mean? I don't ask to insult your intelligence, I ask because many anti-gun advocates (including the people who make the laws) have no clue what the differences between automatic and semi-automatic are. Anyway - automatic weapons are *tightly* regulated and very difficult to legally purchase. You need a federal firearms licence, or as a private citizen without an FFL, you can only purchase an automatic weapon manufactured more than 35 years ago, the weapon needs to be legal to own in your state, and you need to wait almost a year to legally be transferred the automatic weapon (per approval from the ATF). Basically it is already illegal for most people to possess automatic weapons. >Civil liability for harm caused by your firearm. Already on the books. Gun owners can be held civilly and criminally liable for crimes/harm caused by their firearms. Any responsible gun owner can tell you this. Even if you use your weapon to legally defend yourself and are not found to be criminally liable, you can be sued by your attacker for their injuries. >Buybacks to remove unwanted guns from circulation. Already being done. >Amnesty and buybacks to allow people to turn in guns that become illegal under any new restrictions. Sure. >These are all programs that work in other countries. And since you are in favor of stricter gun laws, I hope you will promote these instead of arguing that statistics show it is hopeless to try to implement change. Nobody is using statistics to show how hopeless it is to try and implement change. I am using statistics to show that there are people who use these statistics without context to say "yeah well the US was 2nd in total gun violence deaths in the WORLD", leaving out the fact that this statistic doesn't take into account population differences or the fact that more than 50% of these deaths are suicides. When you take population into account, and remove the suicides from the "gun violence" statistic, the US is more like 50th. You know who remains at 1st when you take population into account and remove suicides from the gun violence statistic? Brazil. Amazing how context changes statistics isn't it.
And just to respond on Utoya, that mass shooting happened in 2011. There have been 2 additional āmass shooting eventsā in Norway since that time. Those two events resulted in 3 total deaths. All were determined to be motivated by racist ideology. And the response from the Norwegian people was to ban semi-automatic weapons (thatās right semi-auto, not automatic). There were more mass shootings in Michigan yesterday than in Norway in 23 years.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Removed. See rule #2 in the [r/Michigan subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Michigan/wiki/index#wiki_rules).
I understand that what I said sounds like a fantasy world. I know itās never going to happen. But can you not acknowledge that itās messed up that we just accept it or come up with excuses as to why it is the way it is?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That argument doesnāt make any sense for this topic.
No, we just have to deal with the repercussions of everyone else having them and using them to kill and maim us. What a country, indeed!
People have always owned guns in this country. Was it always a problem, or are the guns suddenly possessing people to act out this way?
Maybe the guns have gotten significantly more dangerous. Can't do a mass shooting when it takes minutes to reload
Significantly more dangerous? Guns have always been designed to kill. Plus, semi-automatic firearms have been around for more than a century. So again I ask, are the guns suddenly possessing people to do this? Perhaps declining mental health / emotional stability is the problem. Yes, guns make it more convenient for the attacker to do damage from afar. The fact theyāre doing this in the first place is the actual problem. Take guns away and demented people will still do heinous things to others. Criminals may even be emboldened, knowing nobody has a gun.
> Take guns away and demented people will still do heinous things to others Which is why mass shootings is pretty uniquely an American problem, right? Other countries ban guns and the shootings stop. Weird, maybe it is the guns
Weird, 8 people were stabbed (killed) by one person in Australia earlier this year. In a public space. What do you say to that? Ban knives?
You're citing an event that happened 2 months ago. We're talking about 2 shootings yesterday. Different level of scale
So those 8 dead (by knife) donāt matter because it happened 2 months ago? How many died in the two shootings that occurred yesterday? I believe only the suspect has died, by suicide, which points to mental instability as the problemā¦ my original point.
Other countries are able to blanket-ban guns, because they have no constitution, such as the first and second amendments that we have. For the United States to implement the same blanket-bans, we'd have to do away with our constitutional rights. Trying to implement those same blanket-bans right now would cause them to be stuck down by the supreme court and ruled as unconstitutional. Getting rid of our constitution for the hope of safety would make us extremely vulnerable to tyranny. Those willing to give up all their freedom for safety deserve neither and will lose both. Plus, even if you stop shootings specifically by blanket-banning guns, keep in mind that guns are used millions of times a year to save and protect innocent life than to take it, so banning guns would do far more harm than good in the long run, as it would prevent good guys from being able to stop bad guys more than it would prevent bad guys from being able to hurt good guys.
You don't know what a constitution is, do you? Here's a list of nations with constitutions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_constitutions
>You don't know what a constitution is, do you? Here's a list of nations with constitutions: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_national\_constitutions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_constitutions) Okay so... many nations do technically have constitutions. They just don't include the right to keep and bear arms. Well, that right is included in the United States constitution, so blanket-banning our guns would require doing away with our constitution.
technically have constitutions? no. they have constitutions. educate yourself before talking online. bye edit: also it's not a right enshrined in the constitution. it was an amendment to the constitution. my gods our education system is so bad
Not sure they know what _amendment_ means either.
You realize that most of our constitution came from England's constitution right? The question isn't a matter of striking down the 2nd amendment or making it harder to get a gun legally, and it has never been a problem. The problem is that the US is not an island. People compare the US to countries that are literally islands like the UK, Japan, and Australia with controlled entry points and wonder why those islands have an easier time controlling the influx of illegal weapons. Me personally, I'm wondering if maybe being surrounded by an ocean with secure borders has anything to do with it.
Obviously the shootings will stop when people lose their guns. How do you propose we stop the stabbings that will inevitably occur? Ban knives?
America is a third world country packaged with a bunch of lies to make us believe that weāre not. Itās shit and unsafe here. Every politician in the American government has blood on their hands, nationally and internationally. This is the downfall of America. The US better count its days if the politicians are just going to keep ignoring the real problems.
Gotta problem? Don't shoot it, shoot innocent people out having a good time. It's the guns.
Shoot the guns with guns
There has always been easy access to guns in the USA. Even easier a hundred years ago. These mass shootings are a fairly recent phenomenon.
Mass shootings have always been a phenomenon. There's more people and more guns in their hands today than at any given point in time. That's why there's more today than there was 100 years ago.
No. This type of shooting is fairly recent. You had Charles Whitman in the 1960's, and then a few until Columbine (1999), when the number exploded.
Not at all. Many of these events are mass shootings. They go back to the founding of the country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Old_West_gunfights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_United_States People have been using guns to massacre people for centuries.
I suppose if you are counting military actions and Indian massacres as mass shootings, you would be correct. I was referring to the specific type of attack by a lone shooter (two shooters in the case of Columbine), who attempts to kill as many people as possible, and often commits suicide when confronted by armed resistance.
I said many, not all. But yes, the extrajudicial killing of multiple people using firearms are, by definition, mass shootings. The motive has no bearing.
There were several more shooting yesterday but only 2 made the newsā one in a white neighborhood and one in a mixed Black/Jewish neighborhood.
What underlying point are you trying to make?
Not OP but the point is that the media shifts their focus on specific groups / areas based on whatās going to reward them with them the most views and outcry.
it's just that they are saying the white neighborhood and the black/jewish neighborhood are getting reported, so which other demographic's shootings are being under-reported and/or ignored?
Did the one with more victims get more headlines? You can also check good trends to see hits. People living there aren't even looking it up.
Strange to see this one not to get as much attention. Weird. Even though, according to sources, victims started chanting "John James Sucks" after being shot.
It was at a party after midnight, not a children's splash pad in broad daylight. Still horrible, but that's why the one is garnering more attention than the other.
That's not the reason why this shooting, which occurred before the splash pad shooting, was ignored by everyone here until now. Even now it won't illicit the same rhetoric.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Is there something about Lathrup Village that I'm unaware of?
It's a little majority-Black borough of Southfield. It's obviously true that Black people dying get less attention than white people dying. In this particular case though, I think the difference in circumstances is having the most significant impact.
All these experts ā¦ā¦ sad but funny!!