Desensitized
I realize this is a divisive issue, but it's clear that these horrific incidents are going to keep happening with shocking regularity. It seems we've all collectively shrugged our shoulders and accepted it as the reality going forward.
You are viewing a single comment
No, you have both.
Mental health crisis + no private gun ownership = mass shootings exceptionally rare.
No mental health crisis + private gun ownership = mass shootings exceptionally rare.
Mental health crisis + lots of guns = mass shootings are common.
It’s both factors together that cause the problem. Now the question is, which factor is the easiest to change?
It’s closer to who has to change. The millions of gun owners, or the thousand families at the top of the economy (cause every therapy session boils down to “you need more money”)
So, what's your suggestion?
None of you ever have a suggestion on how to take away four hundred million guns. And the old argument "We did it in [country]!" falls apart because at no point did you need to take away four hundred million guns from a bunch of armed idiots.
It's not going to happen overnight, and right now, there are some demographics in the US that are rightfully afraid to give them up, because they literally have no options for defense. We can't call the cops, because they won't help, they will only make the problem worse.
Just start taking them away. No, it won't happen overnight, it may take decades to get rid of the bulk of them. So what? The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second best time is now.
They don't need any options for defense. They only think they do because they are bombarded with scary stories by the media. The reality is that never in the history of the human race has life been as safe as it is today.
Let's turn this around: as a European I don't own a gun. If I were to visit the US on holiday, should I get a gun to be able to stay safe in the US? If so, can I rent one at the airport? How many bullets should I get for a 2 week holiday; how many people should I expect to have to shoot during that time? How often do you use your gun to kill people? What is the procedure after you shoot someone in self defense? Do you need to call it in so the body can be removed or is there a regular daily collection service that removes dead bodies from the streets?
If I have to believe threads like this the US is an absolute shithole of a country where people need to be armed to the teeth to make it through the day alive.
Exactly. "Something" is the answer to "what do we do?" Republicans point out that there's no way to solve the problem 100%,so it's obviously not worth trying at all... Fuck that. Even 5% less school shootings is still a win.
Its not about what's easiest, its what is needed to make people stop wanting to harm others. A gun is a tool. You can easily make a bomb from supplies from a hardware store if you don't have access to a firearm
There is a huge difference though.
It’s the same reason why people start flame wars on the internet: it can be done quickly. People used to start arguments over the mail too, but they were much rarer because by the time you’ve written a letter and walked to the mailbox your temper has cooled down and you decide not to do it.
Guns make it really easy to do harm in the heat of the moment. You can flip and immediately go on a rampage. If you have to go to the hardware store, buy shit, drive back home, assemble the bomb, etc. you have plenty of time to think it over and cool down.
This is the very reason there is a waiting period when buying a gun in some states.
Quick point of clarification if you don't mind, are you, in this above comment, referrencing "spontaneous spousal killings," or "spontaneous mass shootings?"
Except most mass shooters plan for months and write whole ass manifestos. These aren't "oh no the grocer is out of oreos and I really wanted them" situations, these psychos put serious thought and time into this shit.
Waiting periods are for "crimes of passion," yes, but mass shootings ain't that, they're two different facets of gun crime.
If access to guns is not a major factor and these people would just go out and make their own IEDs or whatever, why doesn’t that happen outside the US at anything even close to the same rate mass shooting happen in the US?
Do you think that US is the only country in the world where people have mental health issues?
Well, let's think critically for a second, could there be any other differences at all, like cultural differences or access to health services?
Furthermore, did any of those countries have 600,000,000 guns im 50% of the country's hands with no registry to say where they are and a culture of complete unwillingness to give them up, and trillions of rounds of ammo, actually more than most country's police and mil combined, before their attempted bans? It just won't work here.
Yeah, you covered it below
Which is why
Not that it can't, but it won't. Because the general population of the completely unwilling to do anything at all about it.
Hence the meme. It's a uniquely American thing to be that selfish.
So, should we continue arguing for what "won't work," and bicker in perpetuity, or should we maybe attempt to focus on the root causes of violence that actually could make a meaningful impact, at least first?
So what's the fix for this "root cause", and how is it easier to achieve than some basic firearm restrictions?
Now see, that's the thing. You can "achieve more firearms restrictions" by simple tyranny of the majority, but it doesn't actually necessarily translate to "that shit actually happening" considering the fact that pandora's box has been opened. But if you want to actually achieve a reduction in the rate of violent crime, you need to attack it at the source. It's like a severed artery, the tourniquet can stay on for about 4h, but eventually it'll need to.actually be fixed, or you'll still just die. If we don't solve the actual problems the problem won't actually get solved, you see.
Mass shootings account for only 0.1% of firearm homicides.
shieeet, 0.1% ? That's all you had to say!
True, but thr person I replied to said
They were clearly talking about mass casualty events not being planned, but the issue is that regardless of rarity OF said mass casualty events (which also speaks volumes to not dictating policy over .001% of something), this does not reflect reality as they are overwhelmingly planned.
I disagree; to me it sounds like they're talking about crimes of passion like gunning down a spouse etc. These are the majority of gun homicides but you don't hear about them much because one or two people killed isn't 'newsworthy' on it's own anymore. True mass shootings are infrequent comparatively but because of that and by their nature they're what we hear about. True we shouldn't be regulating based on relatively infrequent tragedies but they can draw attention to firearm homicides as a whole which are a serious issue and not always related to mental health issues in the same way.
Well, no you don't (disagree with me or what it really targets) then, because that's exactly what I'm saying.
You may disagree with my assesment that they are clearly talking about mass shootings, but A) Doubtful, because of all them context clues I bolded, and B) I'll ask after I post this reply, simple solution.
Actually the majority is gang/drug related (well, drug prohibition related. Legalization would help more than most people are willing to admit to themselves). 51% of our violent crime actually comes from just 2% of our counties, it's actually mostly a pretty localized issue.
https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/
Though you are correct in that by far spousal murder outpaces mass casualty events, which themselves only account for .001% of gun crime in the US. 'Course, a spouse is about the easiest person you can kill wothout a gun seeing as you ostensibly sleep in the same bed or possibly one cooks who can drug things, or drug a drink, and then it's trivial if you're already damaged enough to make that decision.
Firearms homicides are a serious issue, yes, by a factor of 12-14k/yr. However, the "disprove good guy with gun 'myth'" low estimate of defensive gun uses per year is 100k. 100k is clearly more than 14k or 12k by far, this suggests that since people currently legally defend themselves more often than they fall victim, an outright ban on legal gun ownership could likely have an opposite effect than intended.
A comment above cited that there's been ~545 mass shootings so far this years.
Do you have a source for your claim that most of those were planned for months and had accompanying manifestos?
I'm not going to dig through all of them (especially since that number includes gang violence, which is a lifestyle choice, and falls outside the scope of what most rational people would call "mass casualty events" or "active shooters" etc,) but yeah th Nashville shooter had one, the grocery store shooter had one (buffalo iirc,) columbine, parkland iirc, the list goes on. They plan them for a long time. Same with McVeigh, Kaczynski, the Nashville bombing guy, the guy who shot up the republican baseball game, these people don't typically "just snap," it has been brewing for months and they've been planning.
The "just snapping" thing has historically been associated with family annhialators (as rare as they are) if any mass killers, usually just "single murderers" who kill the spouse, but even then if no gun is present they'll "just snap" and kill their family in another way a la Chris Benoit. Guns don't have to "make it easier" when you can drug people you're more physically fit than anyway, tie em up, choke them with cords. If my ex wanted to kill me for instance all she'd have had to do is stab me in my sleep, seeing as we slept in the same room and all.
Your ignorance and denialism is part of the problem. Whether you call what you have a mental health issue or not is up to you and your professional caretaker.
"Oh look at me I have a derogatory opinion of the mentally ill" isn't the flex you think it is my dude. Uname checks out.
So you ARE mentally ill?
Lol no but I don't think mentally ill people are necessarily less then, I do think you are though due to your opinion on mentally ill people.
Also, well technically yeah, ADHD like a motherfucker. At least I'm not a bad person like you are through my actions, however, I'm just a "bad person" to you because I hyperfixate on shit a lot. And no, I'm not ashamed of it, I'm just judging you.
What's next, wanna make fun of me for being black? Wow, you're so cool!
Wow, you're racist too? Why are you calling being black a mental health disorder? That's pretty fucked up.
No u, you're the one making fun of people for shit they can't control. Pretend to conflate me calling you ableist, and questioning if your racism will show next, by all means, but it's pretty clear what you are all about. You are a bad person, you've displayed both your racism and ableism for all to see.
Lol. "NO U" "you are a bad person" 😂🤣😂
Get out of here, you fascist racist nazi cultist. go back to hexbear or north korea or wherever you crawled out of.
"No u" 🤣😂🤣 funniest shit I've read today. Brilliant. "No u" 🤣