• Omen2819@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • Eidolon_Alpha@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Lininop@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • thoughtorgan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Redrum714@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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!

          • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

        • absquatulate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • thoughtorgan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Redrum714@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Everyone having guns is the sole reason there’s so many police shootings. Nothing is going to change until the general population is unarmed.

          • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Redrum714@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • Redrum714@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

  • MrMonkey@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?