"There is no way to prevent this" says only country where this happens regularly.
Also, "It's too soon after this tragedy to politicize it."
No, that is 12 hour later. 24 hours later it is too soon after the next day's tragedy.
Whoawhaowhao you can't use political words yet. Everyone knows only once you have all "thoughts and prayers" lined up and fill 2.2 football fields, divided by 2 minus 15 eagles worth of words, can you then even mention politics.
At 8 football fields you can bring up 2A. But what would the world be like if we started changing "amendments". We'd have to make the word amendment a synonym of change or something, that would be crazy.
Since these things happen on a daily basis, it's always too soon. Funny how that works.
“If only she had a gun, this would have been prevented.”
Their answer is always 'more guns will solve this'.
Happens all the time in other nations.
Sure it does. In Yemen, Venezuela, El Salador, Serbia etc.. you mean?
450+ million guns, you're not stopping gang violence like this which is the mass majority of all of our gun crime, by banning guns from lawful citizens. Dudes like this are already barred. Why don't you ask, why out system let him out.
Says man from only country where this happens regularly.
Plenty of other countries haven't banned guns from lawful citizens and dont have this problem.
Ok, man from perfect country. How would you personally solve this problem of gun violence? Would you form a posse and roundup all of the crazed lunatics out there who would dare to try and protect their families with a firearm? Would you raid the houses of anyone who may or may not have owned a gun in the past and search under the floorboards?
Seriously I want to know. How would you help all of these mentally ill people who seem to think that guns are toys, or just deeply want to harm other people?
You don't need me to tell you that. You wouldn't believe me anyway. There are plenty of professionals who have studied and acquired factual data of how other "perfect countries" do it and the differences. From the differences the solutions become very clear.
It's about restricting access, not banning. There's no one size fits all solution because nothing is perfect so you pick your poison. Find a country where this doesn't happen every day (so any developed country), look a the way they do things and pick the one you prefer to support - they all have upsides and downsides. What you have isn't working though.
Every country that has basically an effective ban, also has safety nets for the people, doesn't have a gang problem like we do, and focuses on education and not locking everyone up. They also never had 450+ million firearms in civilian hands. So please share with the class how you think you could pull it off without having all those safety nets in place.
How about having all those safety nets in place and regulated guns? Just an idea...
I'm fine with adding in the safety nets, they'll do 100xs more than any regulation you put in place will do. I'm not ok giving over a monopoly on force to people like the current Republicans. Why any of you think that's a good idea is just insane.
Wtf are you going to do here, go out shooting them or some bullshit? You really think you have any chance against the feds regardless of what side you swing for? That sounds pretty crazy to me. So let's get real and understand your guns are for recreation not safety against tyranny.
Friendly reminder that this guy mayoi is a troll. He's baiting you. Or trying to. His bait has been pretty uninspired lately
Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq all want a word with your complete lack of how wars are fought now.
Also your neighbor is a gun owner, so when they bomb his house your shit is getting pushed in as well.
How does regulating guns so this sort of thing doesn't happen again give Republicans a monopoly on force?
You think the only way to even out the odds is to keep guns in the hands of dangerously mentally ill people? Really?
Because the only way for shit like this to not happen in your world of gun regulation, requires a total ban.
And a total ban gives whoever is in charge of the government a monopoly on force.
People like you will call Republicans nazis and fascist...then want to remove any force multiplier from civs and then pray they don't get elected. You're naive at best and ignorant at worse.
The only way to stop severely mentally ill people from obtaining guns is a total ban? Are you absolutely sure about that? There's no regulation out that that would mitigate the problem?
Tell me how you plan on stopping someone who's mentally ill from obtaining a firearm?
That’s an exaggeration. The US has a better safety net than a lot of countries with much less gun death and violence. Education could better for a rich country, but is not bad. I am all for locking fewer people up, but that’s not the reason there’s gun violence.
This is always the argument against improving anything in the US. “We’re too special!” It’s just not true. Background checks, wait times, permit requirements, concealed carry restrictions, domestic violence restrictions, etc. These have all been empirically shown to reduce gun deaths in the US.
Maybe put those safety nets in place? Offer buy-backs on firearms, or a grace period to turn in unregistered firearms with no questions? Crack down on fraudulent "theft" and loss reports? Modernize the firearms database? Create incentives for law enforcement to execute red-flag laws? Require a higher level of training and responsibility to own a firearm?
Literally doing the bare minimum and just effectively enforcing the laws on the books would make a huge improvement, but we can't even do that because republicans like to whip up the base with the idea that their right to own an AR-15 is going to stop the liburl gubment from takin awah mah rites!
This has been proven to be untrue by other countries who have done the same in the past.
No it hasn't, no one in the history of the world has had this many firearms in civilian hands. Even when Australia took the firearms, only 60% turned in their 1mil total firearms in civ hands.
And gun deaths have dropped enormously ever since.
Australia never had a firearm problem to begin with. This is pants on head stupid take. If you have 100 deaths from firearms a year and removing access to the already small amount in civ hands and gun deaths drop to 50.... everyone now says firearms removed from people dropped by 50% when it was already so low it was a rounding error to begin with.
No, we just had the largest massacre of private citizens by a single shooter in recorded history, (still hasn't been beaten despite how often Americans try, they must really hate us being better than them at something involving guns), and numerous others before it, and none after it. But tell me again how you know nothing about Australia, it's history, or gun control.
Uhh...no you didn't, but ok.
You also did not have high violence involving firearms prior to port author. They also were already trending down prior to the 97 ban and forced confiscation.
Suicides, just like the USA, make up the majority of your firearm deaths. You're homicides via firearms are a joke per year, our gangs alone do that in a month in a single city.
But yes, I'm the one who knows nothing about Australia and it's gun history....lol sounds like you need to study your own history before nosing into ours.
"Nothing Works!" says only country where this happens regularly.
I might buy this argument if other countries also had the same problem. But the fact is that stricter gun laws do work, and the U.S. is very unique in having this issue thanks to our insistence on the 2nd ammendment being infallible.
That's stupid. If it were illegal to carry guns around, far fewer crooks would carry guns. They'd be harder to get and they'd have to balance the risk of being caught with a gun.
Lol what??? It's already illegal for criminals to carry. That's why they do it, they're criminals. We now have more states with CC than ever before, and we actually have lower crime now than we did back in the 70/80s when CC wasn't allowed.
You can also ask why there are so many guns freely floating around that someone like this was capable of obtaining one despite being barred.
Maybe if someone is so dangerous that they are barred from owning a gun they belong in a cage...
How about we just get rid of "private sale" exceptions to background checks in states like Tennessee to slow the tide of guns flowing into the black market?
In Tennessee, one has to buy liquor from the government, but can buy a gun (including semi-auto rifles) from a random person in a parking lot. No questions asked.
I know a person who actually obtained a handgun this way. In a parking lot of a bar on Florida, from a seller who was in his lunch break as an electrician... I'll let those details sink in for anyone safety oriented.
O noooo, a bar parking lot...the humanity....did this someone you know go on to become a serial killer? Or do you still know them and they're a normal person.
Most firearms are semi-auto.... what's your point? You clearly don't know much about firearms with a statement like that.
You can do this in pretty much every state as well. Private sales are legal basically in the entire USA.
I'm so tired of this brain dead take. The amount of guns on the street and gang violence is directly related to how easy it is to aquire them.
gang violence like this which is the mass majority of all of our gun crime
Source?
The most recent stats I could find for gang-related deaths (gun or not) was 2012, when there were 2,363 reported out of a national total of 12,765 homicides.
That is known gang violence, where police %100 know it's gang related. If they do not know the source, they label it as unknown. The estimate is around 80-85% are gang and drug related violence. This isn't some unknown thing.
With 8,855 firearm murders in 2012, 2,363 is a significant part of that.
The 2,363 figure also includes non-firearm murders—I was looking for directly-comparable stats.
But in any case, it isn’t anywhere near a “mass majority”.
whistling noises
You don’t know what you are talking about. It’s not a good look
No I absolutely do know what I'm talking about, but the lot of you all don't have a clue. You sit in your white privilege ivory towers and think only the police should have a monopoly on force...and at the same time wanting to defund them as well. You make no sense.
Marx has the answer. Change material conditions, so there is less crime, thus less need for prisons. But no one wants to read.
You mean no one wants a tankie shithole for a country...
Yes, no one wants to read. This “accident” didn’t happen in a Marxist-Leninist country.
If only she had a gun she could have protected herself!
Don't give them ideas...
Oh they already have them!
And they suck and are stupid. Hate to sound crazy, but I'm tired of their fight fire with fire rhetoric. I just want them to realize how inept they sound.
Could have easily used the gun to shoot down the bullet.
How in the FUCK does that guy get access to guns? Is there literally no check and balances for buying a gun in the states? WTF
From the article it sounds like there were two people randomly shooting at a car. It's plausible that the other guy just gave him one if his guns.
Either way and my point still stands. It's fucking insanity.
Well when Americans INSIST that rootin tootin point and shootin is the only way, then yeah - this shit is gonna keep happening. I’m all about better gun laws, but you’d think I’m growing devil horns when I talk about it
Shouldn't it be a crime to give a loaded gun to someone who is mentally incompetent to stand trial?
Why is someone who is not mentally competent enough to stand trial allowed to return to society? He should have been under medical supervision, not wandering the streets.
That costs money. If we spent money on medical needs, who would fund the war machine?
There are more guns than people in this country. Even if you banned their sale entirely there will still be plenty to go around.
For a time. But if you made it illegal to transfer a firearm by any means and set up a buy-back program where when gun owners died the government would claim the guns and provide fair compensation to the estate you could get rid of the guns without taking anyone's guns away. It would take decades, of course, but every day there would be few guns out there and, importantly, the young people that commit most gun violence would be the people with the hardest time getting and carrying one. You can't expect we'll solve a problem that took decades to metastasize overnight anyway.
So there are solutions. That's just one. We don't solve this problem not because we can't but because we don't have the will to.
I appreciate your optimism but standing here in red rural America I don’t think it will ever happen. There are an insane amount of guns here with more and more every day.
You'd be surprised what people are willing to let go of when they see children in their community being murdered. Doesn't matter what political spectrum you're on. There are major gun safety advocates who used to be 2a Rambo's who lost children and realized how wrong they were.
It's just not worth it.
thats the problem with conservatives in the untied states though... their complete lack of empathy means they dont care to change until someone kills their kid
You’d be surprised what people are willing to let go of when they see children in their community being murdered.
LOL, let me tell you about a town in Connecticut called Newtown and how the events there changed absolutely nothing about US gun policies...
I'd urge you to actually look at the response. Look at the legacy section of the sandy hook shooting.
It actually did change the laws in some places in other places it got worse.
theres about 50% of us or more who also feel we should start sooner than later in solving for the gun issue... but now with trump banging his cult drum, and one of those drum beats is the '2nd amendment' were kinda fucked.
it would take a constitutional amendment, which we havent done in a long time... and with as useless as the 2 parties are right now, it wont happen.
Trump himself once said "take the guns first then figure it out." One of the only cool things he's said.
More than %50. Gun ownership is %50 for only white males. It is only about %15 for the rest of the country. Only one demographic has a culture of violence.
Until there aren't.
There were more buildings with asbestos in the US than people. Then we fixed it.
When in US history was there ever more buildings than people, much less buildings with asbestos?
Yeah but the founding fathers just forgot to include the freedom to put asbestos in walls in the Constitution!
This is the kind of story you save for one of those 2A "shall not be infringed" absolutists. There is no way that a just set of laws would let this guy get a gun.
What a challenging character: He had a brain injury in infancy, functions at a kindergarten level, and can’t be tried due to incompetence, but he apparently drives and repeatedly pulls straps.
Thank God for American logic and lobbying, we avoided punishing our loyal gun owners
A Nashville college student died a day after she was shot in the head allegedly by a man authorities said had previously been released for incompetence to stand trial in a separate shooting
It's pretty easy to buy a gun in this state. If he does get flagged by the system the black market is flooded with them. There's an epidemic in Nashville (and probably many other places) of guns being stolen from vehicles. Almost no arrests are ever made, and yet people still leave firearms in their cars.
Does TN have licensing or permitting? I'm guessing no. Maybe they should, if there are that many irresponsible people leaving firearms unsecured.
They passed a law a couple years ago for open carry. Anyone able to purchase a gun can have a loaded handgun with them concealed or not. It's basically the wild west out here.
no there are not. we have more guns than people, and americans literally have guns just lying around their houses. because we allow it. because 'merica.
so yeah, when we cut all our public mental healthcare in the 80s, and put all those crazy people back on the streets, yes they have access to weapons.
Just commenting on checks and balances, there generally aren't any. It's a constitutional right to have guns in the USA, so most laws that would enforce any kind of restrictions on ownership or access to firearms, are usually deemed unconstitutional and thrown out.
There are entire groups actively working to ensure everyone has fair and unrestricted access to guns, most notably the NRA. Those groups are unapologetic about what they do and they've been very successful in maintaining the status quo for gun access.
IMO as long as the right to bear arms stays enshrined in the US Constitution, this will not change.
I'm not an American and I'm very thankful for that because of things like this, however, my life is very affected by what happens there. As a result, I'm pretty well versed on their country. At times, I know the US laws better than my own countries laws.
Unfortunately it has recently changed …. For the worst.
Previously there were restrictions on carrying and ownership in many states. Those laws were deemed legal because they weren’t bans but limited restrictions . It was enough to make a difference and most such states gad had noticeably lower firearm violence. So we even proved within the US that such laws worked.
Then the Trump Supreme Court struck down most of them
"Stray Bullet" makes it sound like the bullet got off leash. This was a reckless and irresponsible use of firearms and we should start calling it that.
Irresponsible use of firearms in an irresponsible gun culture. Toxic combo.
Sounds like you're conflating gangbangers who post tiktok videos of themselves blasting the air with the 1/3-1/2 of normal humans in American households who own guns.
The real problem here seems to have been the court confusing a gangbanger for a human who can integrate into society.
small price to pay for freedom
Then do us a favour and pay up.
Death is the price you pay to buy freedoms, it's not a fucking subscription service.
As a matter of fact, it is a subscription, and it's exactly how the right to privacy, right to not self-incriminate, due process in general, and "beyond a reasonable doubt" work: on the principle that it's better that some evil people will get off and reoffend than it is for innocent people to be incarcerated for failing to prove their innocence. Not how it always works when prosecutors and judges have a different personal philosophy, but that's the idea and the trade-off taken.
No, it's not. Suffering death is the cost of not having the rights to live. Death is the cost of winning those rights. You believe it's a subscription service because you haven't won those rights yet and you're still paying the cost of not having the right to live.
I'm not sure you fully understand the words you're saying, "right to live" would necessarily demand compelling people to act in the furtherance of everyone else's lives. You could be held criminally liable for eating too much for example, because you're taking away resources needed to keep others alive, and your unhealthy lifestyle taxing the health system actively hurts those who need it more.
You're looking for a different kind of government altogether.
There is a surplus of resources, that's a strawman argument.
Taxes on unhealthy items such as cigarettes and recreational drugs, and sugar exist, these are how you account for those issues of behavioural social damage and the imbalance in cost of social healthcare.
You could be held criminally liable for eating too much for example, because you're taking away resources needed to keep others alive
Yes, we should do this. Let's start with the billionaires and see if everyone has enough then.
Can you quantify this surplus? Because your unqualified statement requires there to be enough to meet ANY demand. You just sound like a genzedong tankie who does not understand the most basic market theory that for every demand there must be a counterpart, who themselves will have demands, and there's no unlimited resource hack IRL (yet).
Your right to life ends where my right to not get unalived by your wishes ends.
Sorry meant to add here and this app needs polish... Deleted comment too slowly.
Also your tangent changed subjects. Right to life. Criminality vs liberties.
How do you get unalived by taxing the wealthy? How do the wealthy get unalived by not being allowed to hoard excess resources beyond their consumption? And how is their ownership not an infringement on the rights of the poor to not be unalived by exploitative systems?
Your grasp on the subject is beyond tenuous, it's outright non-existent. I don't know what conversation you think you have the capacity to be part of, but this is not the one you want.
Your grasp of how money works is surface level.
Let's start here: billionaires do not have billions of dollars like Scrooge McDucks swimming in gold. They hold securities for companies that are doing things on the idea that they can sell them and redeploy that capital later.
In other words: the money means nothing. All that wealth means is they're the ones who control resources.
By similar reasoning, modern monetary theory is that government can print money and activate unused resources without driving inflation very much.
So what you want is a planned economy. Soviet style. In fact the language you use makes it clear you're fully bought into tankie propaganda.
There are 3 ways to make people do things: money, love and power. So am I going to give you everything you need because of love? money is clearly not the means to ends in your system. That leaves the threat of unaliving.
And so we're back at gun control, the only way your kind is able to make such a system work: by killing everyone who disagrees.
Do you know how many dollars you'd have if you took every dollar away from every billionaire and divided it evenly? Enough for a nice dinner, maybe a very cheap getaway, not enough to stop working or get all your needs met by someone else who is in the same position as you.
Wow, who doesn't understand economic theory now. Of course that wouldn't work, you'd have to be a moron to even suggest it.
You're the one who replied to my deleted comment with " all those billionaires exist" (I can't actually pull it up in this app now to quote).
They're even admitting they won't take the responsibility to attempt tracking it down!
Shhh, in the US they are very strongly against making sure gun owners are properly tested for how to operate guns and psychological state they are in. Rumors say it could lead to less shooting incidents but it obviously can't be true because. .. eh.. amendment yes amendment !
Being found incompetent generally removes your right to have a gun.
Why did he have a gun? Why wasn't it taken away?
If the laws we have aren't enforced, then passing more laws isn't going to help.
Most guns used in crimes are stolen, bought on the street, taken from a relative, etc.
So it’s probably pretty easy to get a gun in the circles this guy moved in.
That's usually the case. Which means passing yet more laws without enforcement is not going to have an effect on a group that overall ignores the law.
TL;DR - gun owners are creating the very problem they claim to need firearms to defend themselves against, but resist any possible regulation between themselves and their toys and are quite happy to let society pay for their unfettered right.
I’ve had guns my entire life. The only laws that will make any sense are requirements to secure firearms and making gun owners responsible for crimes committed with said firearms should they not be secured. A somewhat distant third would be capacity limits on magazines…seriously, I’ve had shit tons of fun shooting with 3 round mags or 5 round stripper clips. Nobody needs 15, 25+ round mags. At that point it’s a toy the owner is accessorizing. I’ve done more than one deep dive into the statistics regarding firearm use in crimes, and as I previously mentioned, the vast majority of firearms used are taken/stolen. Grabbed from a relative’s closet. People leave guns under car seats, glove boxes, truck door pockets, countertops, closets, wherever they either left them out of laziness or some fear they make up to justify them accessible in an instant. Theft is a fact of life. There’s never been a civilization without it. Homes and cars will be broken in to and guns stolen. Those guns directly used or sold on the street to be used in crimes. Now the gun owner washes their hands of the gun on the street and goes and buys more to defend against the criminals that stole their stuff. Rinse and repeat.
If people can afford hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of firearms, they can afford a safe. They can afford to not be dumbasses and not leave unsecured firearms where little Johnny can find it and shoot himself, where Tyler doesn’t have the safe code to grab a couple handguns and shoot up his school, where some dude doesn’t steal the guns out of the pickup and then go shoot a store clerk for $ or the other drug dealer on his turf. Failure to secure said firearm gets a nasty charge, like accessory to deadly assault or something. I’m tired of gun owners’ who think gun control stops as soon a a they leave the range and that leave the rest of society to pay the deadly price for their toys.
Lots of Canada’s laws are a little extreme to me, but they cover a lot that you said. Restricted firearms need an extra permit that requires personal references, and must be double locked(like a locked case in a locked safe, or trigger lock plus locked case) during storage and transportation, and we limit magazine sizes. Lots of our gun crime involves firearms purchased legally in the US that make their way here on the black market, so I’m in favour of the US tightening up their gun control.
"Freedom"
There is so much that is unfortunate about this. First off, another person dead because of guns. Second, there is so much news and uproar because she was a young white woman. This is undeniable. Third, in looking for statistics on stray bullet incidences, I found that there is no official tracking in the US.
I found a study of 2008 stray bullet incidents, including deaths from combining news reports. In the year, they found 284 of 501 unique reports of different incidences that met criteria injuring 317 ppl (almost one a day). Of these, about 20% died, and most injured were at home, not aware of any gun violence. Suffice to say, each statistic is a person just like her, and their deaths are all needless tragedies brought on by gun culture.
Child in Gunsville, Alabama, dressed as gun holding a gun at a local gun appreciation day parade gets shot in the gun by a group of gun-shooting friends called the "fun guns gun group" who's group motto is "let's gun for fun!". Now is not the time to discuss guns.
Well this is america, you have to expect stray bullets.
True, but the inaction on this issue is unacceptable.
A society where you have to expect stray bullets has a problem. When you have a problem, you take action to correct that problem. The US does not take any action to correct the problem. The problem continues.
This wasn't just a stray bullet. This was a madman who had terrorized people with guns in the past, and was set free because he isn't fit to stand trial, which somehow means he's fit to be free and have guns.
I don't give a fuck about the shooters backstory or why he's messed up in the head, he should never been allowed out in society of he's not fit, yet dangerous.
How sad. What a waste.
America moment
USA! USA! USA!
The only strays found in parks should be dogs. Not freaking bullets!!!! What the heck is a 'stray bullet' anyway, they move in straight lines and can only be set off by someone pulling a trigger.
we shouldn't be finding strays anywhere. please adopt dogs and bullets from your local shelter.
Tbf neither are actually "allowed" to be in parks.
I imagine some "stray bullet" injuries/deaths are caused by firing into the air causing an arc. Don't mean to "actually" you but it likely isn't always a shot fired horizontally.
I agree with you by the way. And gun control could start would rigorous training requirements (like checking backstops, education on safety) -- it wouldn't have to be "they're taking our guns!".
Guns don't kill stray bullets do...
Bullets don’t kill, kinetic energy does.
Get the glue out I guess.
Everyone together!
Pretty 👏 much 👏 no 👏 one 👏 needs 👏 a 👏 gun 👏 in 👏 first 👏 world 👏 countries!
They 👏 should 👏 be 👏 made 👏 illegal 👏 for 👏 most!
(Unsurprisingly I see a bunch of blank comments from users I blocked in the past, can't wait to add more to the list!)
Edit: If you downvote me could you please comment just so I can make sure I block all the people who don't believe in reality?
Edit 2: Oh man that's funny, there's someone following my history and automatically downvoting every comment I make 😂
Where I live lots of less fortunate people rely on hunting for a source of meat through the winter, I think "illegal for most" is a stretch. Tighter controls, red flag laws and extensive background checks, absolutely. Flat out illegal to own? That's absolutely a deprivation of liberty for lots of people.
If that's enough reason to block me that's unfortunate.
Put all the money going towards gun related issues into social programs and these less fortunate people won't need guns either. I mentioned it in another discussion but if my uncle lived in a northern community of 200 where they sometimes had bears on their porch in the morning and didn't own a gun then you need a pretty fucking great justification to need one.
Heck, they could even have rental programs for the people you're talking about, but they would never agree to that, as if meat wasn't the reason they want a gun... As if being able to shoot people if they feel threatened is the real reason and it just so happens that they're able to hunt since they own a firearm anyway 🤷
I go to the same college as she did, I didn't know her as I'm two years above her. There is currently a makeshift memorial set up in memory of her where they held the vigil the day after she was shot. What was really surreal was driving around close to where she was shot was just seeing people walking around like nothing had happened, just continuing on with their lives. I felt this same way the day of the Covenant shooting, which was less than a year ago now. I honestly think that the only way this senseless gun violence will end is if someone shoots up the capitol (pls note I do not plan on this or that this is a call to action). I wish we didn't have to deal with this but the gun culture has become to ingrained that I wonder how many innocent lives we'll go through before it ends.
I honestly think that the only way this senseless gun violence will end is if someone shoots up the capitol
Believe it or not, DC actually does have pretty strict gun regulations. Still, it's not impossible to get guns into the city, but it's better than nothing.
I don't doubt what you're saying, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the article probably did some handwaving on the actual circumstances.
Yeah, that was my first reaction. Wtf is this "released because he was found incompetent to stand trial"?
Stray bullet also makes it sound like it was "aimed" and mjssed the target a little bit
They really need to do something about this. Bulletproof vests should be mandatory in public places.
I'm not sure how it is in the USA at large, but where I live, I can walk right into a store and buy a gun, but I have to get a special permit to own a bulletproof vest 🤦♂️
Wouldn't want to make it harder for the police to murder me I guess.
Very useful if you get shot in the head. RTFA
A Nashville college student died a day after she was shot in the head allegedly by a man
Then bulletproof helmets should be mandatory too, duh!
Really, everyone should move around in Popemobiles.
Also in the column "Events that don't happen in civilized countries":
wait I thought that never happened, whats all this? Sounds like you aren't being honest
Your examples are when two different races of people are involved so differentiating them makes sense.
What you said involved one person. Their race is irrelevant.
So I'm not the dishonest one here. Or the racist one.
Yall care when it's a pretty blonde white woman but this happens every hour in Nashville
Fuck off. I cared every bit as much when it was a bunch of brown SCHOOL KIDS in Texas or a black kid in FL with a fucking bag of skittles.
In Nashville there are mentally handicapped dudes who were just deemed incompetent to stand trial for almost the exact same thing, who shoot at random cars all the time?
Wow, small world.
almost 9,000 people shot a year in Nashville! TIL
Compared to the 45 gun deaths yearly registered in all of Australia. Jeez.
The actual number is about 100 a year for metro Nashville. Not quite one an hour.
Tennessee has two of the top ten most dangerous cities in America, Memphis and Nashville. Chattanooga is in the top 20 too, I believe.
Oh ok.. I guess it's on then...
Truth. It can stop if we get rid of the gangsters in the ghettos with their illegal guns. We don’t need more cops, just higher rent and taxes to price you out of your dwellings and force you to leave since you refuse to get an education and find jobs.
Man it's like you just hate people and thinking.
If you deprive people from a legal means of housing and feeding themselves, they will house and feed themselves in less legal ways.
Why is it so expensive to live in a city like Nashville?
The same reason it's expensive to live anywhere in the U.S. now. Corporations own all the property.
Or some of you will realize that you need to get an education and a job and help the others learn. The ones that don’t learn should be sent to a remote part of Alaska and provided survival manuals that they need to figure out how to use to build a civil society. Their will be sentries ala Escape from LA/NY and these criminals can either choose to live in peace or chaos. Drones will televise for entertainment.
Oh yeah it's so easy to get an education right? That's like free right? Be quiet with your psycho rambling, go to Alaska yourself.
Ever hear of public primary and high school. It’s free. You just need to make the kids show up so that they don’t end up being criminals.
Yeah sure every school is equally well funded enough to stop kids from doing crimes. Crimes never occurr at schools.
Communities should have cultures that value education and shame kids for trashing the school. This doesn’t happen in other non-ghetto areas. Kids just go to school and learn like civilized people.
This doesn’t happen in other non-ghetto areas.
Except in the suburbs where kids are homeschooled the "Christian" way. But I guess it's okay with them. Can't imagine white it's different to you.
I know someone who was homeschooled atheist and became a doctor. Not sure what your point is. The parents cared about their education and raised them well.
Oh, well that definitely means all that unregulated anti-science Christian homeschooling prepares kids for the real world. There is also a huge problem with abuse and neglect in homeschooling. But they're suburban and white so somehow it's different.
There are problems with anything. I’m not saying that’s the answer for everyone, but it’s better a lot of times than having disengaged parents. On the positive part of that spectrum, I’ve seen a fairly dumb kid, who was getting in with the wrong crowd be pulled from school by his parents and homeschooled such that he is now a doctor.
Maybe you should listen to your own recommendations first before commenting
What a witty remark? I have an MBA and am more qualified to talk about socioeconomic circumstances than most. I’m done though with allowing people to play the systemic oppression card. At some point, people need to work on improving their culture from anti-education and anti-work to pro-education and driven. Black people want to make it all about their oppression, but my people went through the same bullshit including a holocaust and came here with nothing. They weren’t allowed in anyone’s clubs and were barred from many neighborhoods, but we valued education and hard work.
"There is no way to prevent this" says only country where this happens regularly.
Also, "It's too soon after this tragedy to politicize it."
No, that is 12 hour later. 24 hours later it is too soon after the next day's tragedy.
Whoawhaowhao you can't use political words yet. Everyone knows only once you have all "thoughts and prayers" lined up and fill 2.2 football fields, divided by 2 minus 15 eagles worth of words, can you then even mention politics.
At 8 football fields you can bring up 2A. But what would the world be like if we started changing "amendments". We'd have to make the word amendment a synonym of change or something, that would be crazy.
Since these things happen on a daily basis, it's always too soon. Funny how that works.
“If only she had a gun, this would have been prevented.”
Their answer is always 'more guns will solve this'.
Happens all the time in other nations.
Sure it does. In Yemen, Venezuela, El Salador, Serbia etc.. you mean?
Sorry, I meant developed nations
lol when was the last time a stray bullet randomly hit someone in any other developed country?
450+ million guns, you're not stopping gang violence like this which is the mass majority of all of our gun crime, by banning guns from lawful citizens. Dudes like this are already barred. Why don't you ask, why out system let him out.
Says man from only country where this happens regularly.
Plenty of other countries haven't banned guns from lawful citizens and dont have this problem.
Ok, man from perfect country. How would you personally solve this problem of gun violence? Would you form a posse and roundup all of the crazed lunatics out there who would dare to try and protect their families with a firearm? Would you raid the houses of anyone who may or may not have owned a gun in the past and search under the floorboards?
Seriously I want to know. How would you help all of these mentally ill people who seem to think that guns are toys, or just deeply want to harm other people?
You don't need me to tell you that. You wouldn't believe me anyway. There are plenty of professionals who have studied and acquired factual data of how other "perfect countries" do it and the differences. From the differences the solutions become very clear.
It's about restricting access, not banning. There's no one size fits all solution because nothing is perfect so you pick your poison. Find a country where this doesn't happen every day (so any developed country), look a the way they do things and pick the one you prefer to support - they all have upsides and downsides. What you have isn't working though.
Every country that has basically an effective ban, also has safety nets for the people, doesn't have a gang problem like we do, and focuses on education and not locking everyone up. They also never had 450+ million firearms in civilian hands. So please share with the class how you think you could pull it off without having all those safety nets in place.
How about having all those safety nets in place and regulated guns? Just an idea...
I'm fine with adding in the safety nets, they'll do 100xs more than any regulation you put in place will do. I'm not ok giving over a monopoly on force to people like the current Republicans. Why any of you think that's a good idea is just insane.
Wtf are you going to do here, go out shooting them or some bullshit? You really think you have any chance against the feds regardless of what side you swing for? That sounds pretty crazy to me. So let's get real and understand your guns are for recreation not safety against tyranny.
Friendly reminder that this guy mayoi is a troll. He's baiting you. Or trying to. His bait has been pretty uninspired lately
Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq all want a word with your complete lack of how wars are fought now.
Also your neighbor is a gun owner, so when they bomb his house your shit is getting pushed in as well.
How does regulating guns so this sort of thing doesn't happen again give Republicans a monopoly on force?
You think the only way to even out the odds is to keep guns in the hands of dangerously mentally ill people? Really?
Because the only way for shit like this to not happen in your world of gun regulation, requires a total ban.
And a total ban gives whoever is in charge of the government a monopoly on force.
People like you will call Republicans nazis and fascist...then want to remove any force multiplier from civs and then pray they don't get elected. You're naive at best and ignorant at worse.
The only way to stop severely mentally ill people from obtaining guns is a total ban? Are you absolutely sure about that? There's no regulation out that that would mitigate the problem?
Tell me how you plan on stopping someone who's mentally ill from obtaining a firearm?
That’s an exaggeration. The US has a better safety net than a lot of countries with much less gun death and violence. Education could better for a rich country, but is not bad. I am all for locking fewer people up, but that’s not the reason there’s gun violence.
This is always the argument against improving anything in the US. “We’re too special!” It’s just not true. Background checks, wait times, permit requirements, concealed carry restrictions, domestic violence restrictions, etc. These have all been empirically shown to reduce gun deaths in the US.
Maybe put those safety nets in place? Offer buy-backs on firearms, or a grace period to turn in unregistered firearms with no questions? Crack down on fraudulent "theft" and loss reports? Modernize the firearms database? Create incentives for law enforcement to execute red-flag laws? Require a higher level of training and responsibility to own a firearm?
Literally doing the bare minimum and just effectively enforcing the laws on the books would make a huge improvement, but we can't even do that because republicans like to whip up the base with the idea that their right to own an AR-15 is going to stop the liburl gubment from takin awah mah rites!
This has been proven to be untrue by other countries who have done the same in the past.
No it hasn't, no one in the history of the world has had this many firearms in civilian hands. Even when Australia took the firearms, only 60% turned in their 1mil total firearms in civ hands.
And gun deaths have dropped enormously ever since.
Australia never had a firearm problem to begin with. This is pants on head stupid take. If you have 100 deaths from firearms a year and removing access to the already small amount in civ hands and gun deaths drop to 50.... everyone now says firearms removed from people dropped by 50% when it was already so low it was a rounding error to begin with.
No, we just had the largest massacre of private citizens by a single shooter in recorded history, (still hasn't been beaten despite how often Americans try, they must really hate us being better than them at something involving guns), and numerous others before it, and none after it. But tell me again how you know nothing about Australia, it's history, or gun control.
Uhh...no you didn't, but ok.
You also did not have high violence involving firearms prior to port author. They also were already trending down prior to the 97 ban and forced confiscation.
https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi269
Suicides, just like the USA, make up the majority of your firearm deaths. You're homicides via firearms are a joke per year, our gangs alone do that in a month in a single city.
But yes, I'm the one who knows nothing about Australia and it's gun history....lol sounds like you need to study your own history before nosing into ours.
"Nothing Works!" says only country where this happens regularly.
I might buy this argument if other countries also had the same problem. But the fact is that stricter gun laws do work, and the U.S. is very unique in having this issue thanks to our insistence on the 2nd ammendment being infallible.
That's stupid. If it were illegal to carry guns around, far fewer crooks would carry guns. They'd be harder to get and they'd have to balance the risk of being caught with a gun.
Lol what??? It's already illegal for criminals to carry. That's why they do it, they're criminals. We now have more states with CC than ever before, and we actually have lower crime now than we did back in the 70/80s when CC wasn't allowed.
You can also ask why there are so many guns freely floating around that someone like this was capable of obtaining one despite being barred.
Maybe if someone is so dangerous that they are barred from owning a gun they belong in a cage...
How about we just get rid of "private sale" exceptions to background checks in states like Tennessee to slow the tide of guns flowing into the black market?
In Tennessee, one has to buy liquor from the government, but can buy a gun (including semi-auto rifles) from a random person in a parking lot. No questions asked.
I know a person who actually obtained a handgun this way. In a parking lot of a bar on Florida, from a seller who was in his lunch break as an electrician... I'll let those details sink in for anyone safety oriented.
O noooo, a bar parking lot...the humanity....did this someone you know go on to become a serial killer? Or do you still know them and they're a normal person.
Most firearms are semi-auto.... what's your point? You clearly don't know much about firearms with a statement like that.
You can do this in pretty much every state as well. Private sales are legal basically in the entire USA.
I'm so tired of this brain dead take. The amount of guns on the street and gang violence is directly related to how easy it is to aquire them.
Source?
The most recent stats I could find for gang-related deaths (gun or not) was 2012, when there were 2,363 reported out of a national total of 12,765 homicides.
That is known gang violence, where police %100 know it's gang related. If they do not know the source, they label it as unknown. The estimate is around 80-85% are gang and drug related violence. This isn't some unknown thing.
With 8,855 firearm murders in 2012, 2,363 is a significant part of that.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls
The 2,363 figure also includes non-firearm murders—I was looking for directly-comparable stats.
But in any case, it isn’t anywhere near a “mass majority”.
whistling noises
You don’t know what you are talking about. It’s not a good look
No I absolutely do know what I'm talking about, but the lot of you all don't have a clue. You sit in your white privilege ivory towers and think only the police should have a monopoly on force...and at the same time wanting to defund them as well. You make no sense.
Marx has the answer. Change material conditions, so there is less crime, thus less need for prisons. But no one wants to read.
You mean no one wants a tankie shithole for a country...
Yes, no one wants to read. This “accident” didn’t happen in a Marxist-Leninist country.
If only she had a gun she could have protected herself!
Don't give them ideas...
Oh they already have them!
And they suck and are stupid. Hate to sound crazy, but I'm tired of their fight fire with fire rhetoric. I just want them to realize how inept they sound.
Could have easily used the gun to shoot down the bullet.
How in the FUCK does that guy get access to guns? Is there literally no check and balances for buying a gun in the states? WTF
From the article it sounds like there were two people randomly shooting at a car. It's plausible that the other guy just gave him one if his guns.
Either way and my point still stands. It's fucking insanity.
Well when Americans INSIST that rootin tootin point and shootin is the only way, then yeah - this shit is gonna keep happening. I’m all about better gun laws, but you’d think I’m growing devil horns when I talk about it
I completely agree.
Shouldn't it be a crime to give a loaded gun to someone who is mentally incompetent to stand trial?
Why is someone who is not mentally competent enough to stand trial allowed to return to society? He should have been under medical supervision, not wandering the streets.
That costs money. If we spent money on medical needs, who would fund the war machine?
There are more guns than people in this country. Even if you banned their sale entirely there will still be plenty to go around.
For a time. But if you made it illegal to transfer a firearm by any means and set up a buy-back program where when gun owners died the government would claim the guns and provide fair compensation to the estate you could get rid of the guns without taking anyone's guns away. It would take decades, of course, but every day there would be few guns out there and, importantly, the young people that commit most gun violence would be the people with the hardest time getting and carrying one. You can't expect we'll solve a problem that took decades to metastasize overnight anyway.
So there are solutions. That's just one. We don't solve this problem not because we can't but because we don't have the will to.
I appreciate your optimism but standing here in red rural America I don’t think it will ever happen. There are an insane amount of guns here with more and more every day.
You'd be surprised what people are willing to let go of when they see children in their community being murdered. Doesn't matter what political spectrum you're on. There are major gun safety advocates who used to be 2a Rambo's who lost children and realized how wrong they were. It's just not worth it.
thats the problem with conservatives in the untied states though... their complete lack of empathy means they dont care to change until someone kills their kid
LOL, let me tell you about a town in Connecticut called Newtown and how the events there changed absolutely nothing about US gun policies...
I'd urge you to actually look at the response. Look at the legacy section of the sandy hook shooting. It actually did change the laws in some places in other places it got worse.
theres about 50% of us or more who also feel we should start sooner than later in solving for the gun issue... but now with trump banging his cult drum, and one of those drum beats is the '2nd amendment' were kinda fucked.
it would take a constitutional amendment, which we havent done in a long time... and with as useless as the 2 parties are right now, it wont happen.
Trump himself once said "take the guns first then figure it out." One of the only cool things he's said.
More than %50. Gun ownership is %50 for only white males. It is only about %15 for the rest of the country. Only one demographic has a culture of violence.
Until there aren't.
There were more buildings with asbestos in the US than people. Then we fixed it.
When in US history was there ever more buildings than people, much less buildings with asbestos?
Yeah but the founding fathers just forgot to include the freedom to put asbestos in walls in the Constitution!
Pursuit of happiness, obviously.
Can we really have happiness without asbestos? 🤔
This is the kind of story you save for one of those 2A "shall not be infringed" absolutists. There is no way that a just set of laws would let this guy get a gun.
What a challenging character: He had a brain injury in infancy, functions at a kindergarten level, and can’t be tried due to incompetence, but he apparently drives and repeatedly pulls straps.
Thank God for American logic and lobbying, we avoided punishing our loyal gun owners
The guy probably has an IQ of 15. Which also correlates with the average IQ of people who are attracted to shooting guns at cars outside near a park. We can only walk as fast as society's slowest person..
I recommend watching part 1 and 2
It's pretty easy to buy a gun in this state. If he does get flagged by the system the black market is flooded with them. There's an epidemic in Nashville (and probably many other places) of guns being stolen from vehicles. Almost no arrests are ever made, and yet people still leave firearms in their cars.
Does TN have licensing or permitting? I'm guessing no. Maybe they should, if there are that many irresponsible people leaving firearms unsecured.
They passed a law a couple years ago for open carry. Anyone able to purchase a gun can have a loaded handgun with them concealed or not. It's basically the wild west out here.
no there are not. we have more guns than people, and americans literally have guns just lying around their houses. because we allow it. because 'merica.
so yeah, when we cut all our public mental healthcare in the 80s, and put all those crazy people back on the streets, yes they have access to weapons.
Just commenting on checks and balances, there generally aren't any. It's a constitutional right to have guns in the USA, so most laws that would enforce any kind of restrictions on ownership or access to firearms, are usually deemed unconstitutional and thrown out.
There are entire groups actively working to ensure everyone has fair and unrestricted access to guns, most notably the NRA. Those groups are unapologetic about what they do and they've been very successful in maintaining the status quo for gun access.
IMO as long as the right to bear arms stays enshrined in the US Constitution, this will not change.
I'm not an American and I'm very thankful for that because of things like this, however, my life is very affected by what happens there. As a result, I'm pretty well versed on their country. At times, I know the US laws better than my own countries laws.
Unfortunately it has recently changed …. For the worst.
Previously there were restrictions on carrying and ownership in many states. Those laws were deemed legal because they weren’t bans but limited restrictions . It was enough to make a difference and most such states gad had noticeably lower firearm violence. So we even proved within the US that such laws worked.
Then the Trump Supreme Court struck down most of them
"Stray Bullet" makes it sound like the bullet got off leash. This was a reckless and irresponsible use of firearms and we should start calling it that.
Irresponsible use of firearms in an irresponsible gun culture. Toxic combo.
Sounds like you're conflating gangbangers who post tiktok videos of themselves blasting the air with the 1/3-1/2 of normal humans in American households who own guns.
The real problem here seems to have been the court confusing a gangbanger for a human who can integrate into society.
small price to pay for freedom
Then do us a favour and pay up.
Death is the price you pay to buy freedoms, it's not a fucking subscription service.
As a matter of fact, it is a subscription, and it's exactly how the right to privacy, right to not self-incriminate, due process in general, and "beyond a reasonable doubt" work: on the principle that it's better that some evil people will get off and reoffend than it is for innocent people to be incarcerated for failing to prove their innocence. Not how it always works when prosecutors and judges have a different personal philosophy, but that's the idea and the trade-off taken.
No, it's not. Suffering death is the cost of not having the rights to live. Death is the cost of winning those rights. You believe it's a subscription service because you haven't won those rights yet and you're still paying the cost of not having the right to live.
I'm not sure you fully understand the words you're saying, "right to live" would necessarily demand compelling people to act in the furtherance of everyone else's lives. You could be held criminally liable for eating too much for example, because you're taking away resources needed to keep others alive, and your unhealthy lifestyle taxing the health system actively hurts those who need it more.
You're looking for a different kind of government altogether.
There is a surplus of resources, that's a strawman argument.
Taxes on unhealthy items such as cigarettes and recreational drugs, and sugar exist, these are how you account for those issues of behavioural social damage and the imbalance in cost of social healthcare.
Yes, we should do this. Let's start with the billionaires and see if everyone has enough then.
Can you quantify this surplus? Because your unqualified statement requires there to be enough to meet ANY demand. You just sound like a genzedong tankie who does not understand the most basic market theory that for every demand there must be a counterpart, who themselves will have demands, and there's no unlimited resource hack IRL (yet).
Your right to life ends where my right to not get unalived by your wishes ends.
Sorry meant to add here and this app needs polish... Deleted comment too slowly.
Also your tangent changed subjects. Right to life. Criminality vs liberties.
How do you get unalived by taxing the wealthy? How do the wealthy get unalived by not being allowed to hoard excess resources beyond their consumption? And how is their ownership not an infringement on the rights of the poor to not be unalived by exploitative systems?
Your grasp on the subject is beyond tenuous, it's outright non-existent. I don't know what conversation you think you have the capacity to be part of, but this is not the one you want.
Your grasp of how money works is surface level.
Let's start here: billionaires do not have billions of dollars like Scrooge McDucks swimming in gold. They hold securities for companies that are doing things on the idea that they can sell them and redeploy that capital later.
In other words: the money means nothing. All that wealth means is they're the ones who control resources.
By similar reasoning, modern monetary theory is that government can print money and activate unused resources without driving inflation very much.
So what you want is a planned economy. Soviet style. In fact the language you use makes it clear you're fully bought into tankie propaganda.
There are 3 ways to make people do things: money, love and power. So am I going to give you everything you need because of love? money is clearly not the means to ends in your system. That leaves the threat of unaliving.
And so we're back at gun control, the only way your kind is able to make such a system work: by killing everyone who disagrees.
Do you know how many dollars you'd have if you took every dollar away from every billionaire and divided it evenly? Enough for a nice dinner, maybe a very cheap getaway, not enough to stop working or get all your needs met by someone else who is in the same position as you.
Wow, who doesn't understand economic theory now. Of course that wouldn't work, you'd have to be a moron to even suggest it.
You're the one who replied to my deleted comment with " all those billionaires exist" (I can't actually pull it up in this app now to quote).
That's some maoist theory you're leaning on.
Agreed completely
They're even admitting they won't take the responsibility to attempt tracking it down!
Shhh, in the US they are very strongly against making sure gun owners are properly tested for how to operate guns and psychological state they are in. Rumors say it could lead to less shooting incidents but it obviously can't be true because. .. eh.. amendment yes amendment !
The cost of freedom i guess
Being found incompetent generally removes your right to have a gun. Why did he have a gun? Why wasn't it taken away?
If the laws we have aren't enforced, then passing more laws isn't going to help.
Most guns used in crimes are stolen, bought on the street, taken from a relative, etc.
So it’s probably pretty easy to get a gun in the circles this guy moved in.
That's usually the case. Which means passing yet more laws without enforcement is not going to have an effect on a group that overall ignores the law.
TL;DR - gun owners are creating the very problem they claim to need firearms to defend themselves against, but resist any possible regulation between themselves and their toys and are quite happy to let society pay for their unfettered right.
I’ve had guns my entire life. The only laws that will make any sense are requirements to secure firearms and making gun owners responsible for crimes committed with said firearms should they not be secured. A somewhat distant third would be capacity limits on magazines…seriously, I’ve had shit tons of fun shooting with 3 round mags or 5 round stripper clips. Nobody needs 15, 25+ round mags. At that point it’s a toy the owner is accessorizing. I’ve done more than one deep dive into the statistics regarding firearm use in crimes, and as I previously mentioned, the vast majority of firearms used are taken/stolen. Grabbed from a relative’s closet. People leave guns under car seats, glove boxes, truck door pockets, countertops, closets, wherever they either left them out of laziness or some fear they make up to justify them accessible in an instant. Theft is a fact of life. There’s never been a civilization without it. Homes and cars will be broken in to and guns stolen. Those guns directly used or sold on the street to be used in crimes. Now the gun owner washes their hands of the gun on the street and goes and buys more to defend against the criminals that stole their stuff. Rinse and repeat.
If people can afford hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of firearms, they can afford a safe. They can afford to not be dumbasses and not leave unsecured firearms where little Johnny can find it and shoot himself, where Tyler doesn’t have the safe code to grab a couple handguns and shoot up his school, where some dude doesn’t steal the guns out of the pickup and then go shoot a store clerk for $ or the other drug dealer on his turf. Failure to secure said firearm gets a nasty charge, like accessory to deadly assault or something. I’m tired of gun owners’ who think gun control stops as soon a a they leave the range and that leave the rest of society to pay the deadly price for their toys.
Lots of Canada’s laws are a little extreme to me, but they cover a lot that you said. Restricted firearms need an extra permit that requires personal references, and must be double locked(like a locked case in a locked safe, or trigger lock plus locked case) during storage and transportation, and we limit magazine sizes. Lots of our gun crime involves firearms purchased legally in the US that make their way here on the black market, so I’m in favour of the US tightening up their gun control.
"Freedom"
There is so much that is unfortunate about this. First off, another person dead because of guns. Second, there is so much news and uproar because she was a young white woman. This is undeniable. Third, in looking for statistics on stray bullet incidences, I found that there is no official tracking in the US.
I found a study of 2008 stray bullet incidents, including deaths from combining news reports. In the year, they found 284 of 501 unique reports of different incidences that met criteria injuring 317 ppl (almost one a day). Of these, about 20% died, and most injured were at home, not aware of any gun violence. Suffice to say, each statistic is a person just like her, and their deaths are all needless tragedies brought on by gun culture.
Source: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201323
There's a lot of missing data for gun violence in the US thanks to the NRA lobbying to limit federal funding for research and block the release of data.
Child in Gunsville, Alabama, dressed as gun holding a gun at a local gun appreciation day parade gets shot in the gun by a group of gun-shooting friends called the "fun guns gun group" who's group motto is "let's gun for fun!". Now is not the time to discuss guns.
Well this is america, you have to expect stray bullets.
True, but the inaction on this issue is unacceptable.
A society where you have to expect stray bullets has a problem. When you have a problem, you take action to correct that problem. The US does not take any action to correct the problem. The problem continues.
This wasn't just a stray bullet. This was a madman who had terrorized people with guns in the past, and was set free because he isn't fit to stand trial, which somehow means he's fit to be free and have guns.
I don't give a fuck about the shooters backstory or why he's messed up in the head, he should never been allowed out in society of he's not fit, yet dangerous.
How sad. What a waste.
America moment
USA! USA! USA!
The only strays found in parks should be dogs. Not freaking bullets!!!! What the heck is a 'stray bullet' anyway, they move in straight lines and can only be set off by someone pulling a trigger.
we shouldn't be finding strays anywhere. please adopt dogs and bullets from your local shelter.
Tbf neither are actually "allowed" to be in parks.
I imagine some "stray bullet" injuries/deaths are caused by firing into the air causing an arc. Don't mean to "actually" you but it likely isn't always a shot fired horizontally.
I agree with you by the way. And gun control could start would rigorous training requirements (like checking backstops, education on safety) -- it wouldn't have to be "they're taking our guns!".
Guns don't kill stray bullets do...
Bullets don’t kill, kinetic energy does.
Get the glue out I guess.
Everyone together!
Pretty 👏 much 👏 no 👏 one 👏 needs 👏 a 👏 gun 👏 in 👏 first 👏 world 👏 countries!
They 👏 should 👏 be 👏 made 👏 illegal 👏 for 👏 most!
(Unsurprisingly I see a bunch of blank comments from users I blocked in the past, can't wait to add more to the list!)
Edit: If you downvote me could you please comment just so I can make sure I block all the people who don't believe in reality?
Edit 2: Oh man that's funny, there's someone following my history and automatically downvoting every comment I make 😂
Where I live lots of less fortunate people rely on hunting for a source of meat through the winter, I think "illegal for most" is a stretch. Tighter controls, red flag laws and extensive background checks, absolutely. Flat out illegal to own? That's absolutely a deprivation of liberty for lots of people.
If that's enough reason to block me that's unfortunate.
Put all the money going towards gun related issues into social programs and these less fortunate people won't need guns either. I mentioned it in another discussion but if my uncle lived in a northern community of 200 where they sometimes had bears on their porch in the morning and didn't own a gun then you need a pretty fucking great justification to need one.
Heck, they could even have rental programs for the people you're talking about, but they would never agree to that, as if meat wasn't the reason they want a gun... As if being able to shoot people if they feel threatened is the real reason and it just so happens that they're able to hunt since they own a firearm anyway 🤷
I go to the same college as she did, I didn't know her as I'm two years above her. There is currently a makeshift memorial set up in memory of her where they held the vigil the day after she was shot. What was really surreal was driving around close to where she was shot was just seeing people walking around like nothing had happened, just continuing on with their lives. I felt this same way the day of the Covenant shooting, which was less than a year ago now. I honestly think that the only way this senseless gun violence will end is if someone shoots up the capitol (pls note I do not plan on this or that this is a call to action). I wish we didn't have to deal with this but the gun culture has become to ingrained that I wonder how many innocent lives we'll go through before it ends.
Like this ?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shooting
Still no change.
Believe it or not, DC actually does have pretty strict gun regulations. Still, it's not impossible to get guns into the city, but it's better than nothing.
This article has some bullshit in it. I don't doubt the reporting; I doubt the authorities. Per actual Federal law, a finding of being mentally incompetent to stand trial means the defendant is incarcerated indefinitely, not released. Why the hell was this guy on the streets?
I don't doubt what you're saying, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the article probably did some handwaving on the actual circumstances.
Yeah, that was my first reaction. Wtf is this "released because he was found incompetent to stand trial"?
Stray bullet also makes it sound like it was "aimed" and mjssed the target a little bit
They really need to do something about this. Bulletproof vests should be mandatory in public places.
I'm not sure how it is in the USA at large, but where I live, I can walk right into a store and buy a gun, but I have to get a special permit to own a bulletproof vest 🤦♂️
Wouldn't want to make it harder for the police to murder me I guess.
Very useful if you get shot in the head. RTFA
Then bulletproof helmets should be mandatory too, duh!
Really, everyone should move around in Popemobiles.
Also in the column "Events that don't happen in civilized countries":
Thoughts and effin' prayers man... 🤬
MURICA!!!!
The cost of freedom i guess
A black man named Shaquille Tyler was responsible https://www.newschannel5.com/news/newschannel-5-investigates/who-is-shaquille-taylor-the-man-charged-with-shooting-a-belmont-university-student
It's ok to just say "man."
just being descriptive
Then why didn't you also say 'a thin man' or 'a bearded man' or 'a young man?' I think we all know why.
do you think its wrong when the media says white man?
This is the first banned account I've seen on Lemmy, congrats!
Something it pretty much never says?
https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/crime/2018/08/13/white-man-shoots-black-man-florida-stand-your-ground/977563002/ https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/white-man-attacks-black-youtube-prankster-for-grabbing-his-luggage-at-the-airport-and-pretending-to-run-off-with-it-video/ar-AA16K3b0 https://www.fair360.com/video-white-customer-attacks-black-mcdonalds-employee-she-fights-him-off-2/ https://www.dailydot.com/irl/white-man-attacks-black-teen-belt-video/
wait I thought that never happened, whats all this? Sounds like you aren't being honest
Your examples are when two different races of people are involved so differentiating them makes sense.
What you said involved one person. Their race is irrelevant.
So I'm not the dishonest one here. Or the racist one.
Yall care when it's a pretty blonde white woman but this happens every hour in Nashville
Fuck off. I cared every bit as much when it was a bunch of brown SCHOOL KIDS in Texas or a black kid in FL with a fucking bag of skittles.
In Nashville there are mentally handicapped dudes who were just deemed incompetent to stand trial for almost the exact same thing, who shoot at random cars all the time?
Wow, small world.
almost 9,000 people shot a year in Nashville! TIL
Compared to the 45 gun deaths yearly registered in all of Australia. Jeez.
The actual number is about 100 a year for metro Nashville. Not quite one an hour.
Tennessee has two of the top ten most dangerous cities in America, Memphis and Nashville. Chattanooga is in the top 20 too, I believe.
Oh ok.. I guess it's on then...
Truth. It can stop if we get rid of the gangsters in the ghettos with their illegal guns. We don’t need more cops, just higher rent and taxes to price you out of your dwellings and force you to leave since you refuse to get an education and find jobs.
Man it's like you just hate people and thinking.
If you deprive people from a legal means of housing and feeding themselves, they will house and feed themselves in less legal ways.
Why is it so expensive to live in a city like Nashville?
The same reason it's expensive to live anywhere in the U.S. now. Corporations own all the property.
Or some of you will realize that you need to get an education and a job and help the others learn. The ones that don’t learn should be sent to a remote part of Alaska and provided survival manuals that they need to figure out how to use to build a civil society. Their will be sentries ala Escape from LA/NY and these criminals can either choose to live in peace or chaos. Drones will televise for entertainment.
Oh yeah it's so easy to get an education right? That's like free right? Be quiet with your psycho rambling, go to Alaska yourself.
Ever hear of public primary and high school. It’s free. You just need to make the kids show up so that they don’t end up being criminals.
Yeah sure every school is equally well funded enough to stop kids from doing crimes. Crimes never occurr at schools.
Communities should have cultures that value education and shame kids for trashing the school. This doesn’t happen in other non-ghetto areas. Kids just go to school and learn like civilized people.
Except in the suburbs where kids are homeschooled the "Christian" way. But I guess it's okay with them. Can't imagine white it's different to you.
I know someone who was homeschooled atheist and became a doctor. Not sure what your point is. The parents cared about their education and raised them well.
Oh, well that definitely means all that unregulated anti-science Christian homeschooling prepares kids for the real world. There is also a huge problem with abuse and neglect in homeschooling. But they're suburban and white so somehow it's different.
There are problems with anything. I’m not saying that’s the answer for everyone, but it’s better a lot of times than having disengaged parents. On the positive part of that spectrum, I’ve seen a fairly dumb kid, who was getting in with the wrong crowd be pulled from school by his parents and homeschooled such that he is now a doctor.
"you need to get an education"
Maybe you should listen to your own recommendations first before commenting
What a witty remark? I have an MBA and am more qualified to talk about socioeconomic circumstances than most. I’m done though with allowing people to play the systemic oppression card. At some point, people need to work on improving their culture from anti-education and anti-work to pro-education and driven. Black people want to make it all about their oppression, but my people went through the same bullshit including a holocaust and came here with nothing. They weren’t allowed in anyone’s clubs and were barred from many neighborhoods, but we valued education and hard work.
I wish we all could be as smart as you.
Thanks. I appreciate the positive vibes.