The Swiss solution really is what should be followed.
The solution to allow gun ownership is conscription?
No thanks.
If you follow the constitution, the right to bear arms is for a well regulated militia. Not for a stressed 18 year old buying an AR-15 at Walmart to shoot up rioters from another state.
You might not like where that logic goes. The Supreme Court took a stance in United States v. Miller (1939) that the NFA's provisions on short barreled shotguns could be enforced on the basis that it's not a weapon that would be used by a well-regulated militia.
That brings us to a conclusion that literally nobody likes. The government could ban shorty shotguns and .22 rimfire, because those aren't militia weapons. It could not ban fully automatic weapons or even rocket launchers.
We have to come up with something.
I am a gun owner.
There are legitimate uses for them.
But a rifle marksman course requirement?
Gun safety classes?
30 day waiting period?
Mental health screening?
Accountability if you buy it for someone else who uses it to commit violence?
Anything?
Something has to stop the senseless violence.
I know that it won't stop it.
People in Brittain use knives.... Acid in the middle east.
The difference there is that the harm is limited to a few people and not these mass casualty events.
Yes totally forgot about that the people part...go read some federalist papers and a few history books the 2nd is for the people not the militia.
Hey don't cry about unborn babies but be pro school shootings there bud. The founders had single shot musket rifles not semi automatic rifles. If you want to be constructionist then ban the sale of anything other than breach loaders with separate shell and powder charge and have a good day.
Isn't California doing something like that?
First off, I'm pro-choice. I'm just not an ignorant naive tool like you seem to be. The founders weren't idiots they knew tech wasn't going to stop, you could also own warships during those days, the equivalent of owning a nuclear attack sub basically. If you think the 2nd only applies to single shot muskets, then the Internet isn't covered by the first amendment in your mind. Being ignorant of history doesn't magically make you correct.
Look, there are ways to make this work.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't have guns.
I own one myself.
However, maybe there should be a 30 day waiting period?
Mental health fitness assessment?
Anything?
If you're actually wanting to solve our violence problem, you go to the root of our societies issues, not the tool used. All of these things below would curb our violence as a whole 1000xs more than any new gun control can.
We can start with:
Single payer healthcare
Ending the War on Drugs
Ending Qualified immunity
Properly funding our schools and not just rich white suburb schools.
Build more schools and hire more teachers for proper pay so the class room sizes aren't 30-40 kids for one teacher.
UBI (at least start talking about it) once AI takes over most of the blue collar jobs.
End for profit prisons
Enforce the laws already on the books
Make sure there are safety nets for poor families so the kids don't turn to violence/gangs to survive.
Increase the minimum wage
Recreate our mental healthcare so kids don't turn to the internet for support. And to help veterans not end up as a suicide number.
Actively make a law to solidify Pro-choice rights. More unwanted children do not help our situation.
Banning Insider Trading for Congress
Term limits
Ranked Choice Voting so we can move away from a 2 party system
Based.
If people learned how to defend themselves and then also everyone knew how to use them suddenly gun culture changes and it's like a tool instead of a status symbol. If you don't want to serve, there are non-combat roles. If you don't like it then hey maybe you should invent bullet proof kids.
I wish they'd bring back the draft. Draft men and women over the age of 18 for like two years; it doesn't need to be for combat roles either. You get job training, you learn self-discipline, how to work in a team, really a lot of life skills. And then when your enlistment is up, you get training on how to find a job, how to write a resume, how to pass an interview, you get to use the GI bill and (in my hypothetical scenario) would keep Tricare. And more people would care about where and when we deploy our military, because they actually have a stake in it now.
The only way someone should be allowed to own a gun is after rigorous training, like in the military.
Only then do you have "good guy with a gun"
So the problem was this guy wasn't trained enough?
Thanks, funniest comment today
Mandatory conscription is probably my most âout thereâ political belief. I think the benefits would be vast! I donât think it would prevent mass shootings in America, though.
Conscription doesn't mean war.
It means being prepared.
And yes maybe we could be more prepared to deal with this stupidity and remove the gun culture if it wasn't special anymore.
I think one of the benefits would be less war since every citizen would be personally affected by it. Also all the public works and infrastructure. And healthcare. It could be great! Maybe it would help with all the âlonely menâ culture that we hear so much about, and likely plays into some of the gun culture. I guess weâll never know since that wonât happen here, though.
I would like to hear about the killers psychology and motivation (don't care about the fuckers name) and what is being done to prevent such motivation from manifesting again.
We don't often talk about this in the limelight, but it's important. We need to understand how they got here if we want to have any hope of reducing the odds of that happening again.
Czech media reported that Kozak authored social media posts in which he indulged in fantasies of suicide and mass murders in the days before the attacks.
I don't want to ruin internet privacy, but who has ideas on how to handle this better? I feel like if someone's posting "I wanna do a mass shooting" something should happen. I don't want the state or private enterprise to be able to abuse that, though.
deleted by creator
I have long thought that the police as an institution in the US is, shall we say, not good.
One time I was walking home from the grocery and I saw a couple having a screaming fight on the street. The guy had taken the woman's phone from her and was holding it up out of her reach. I thought to myself, "Someone should probably do something.. but who? And what?"
If I had called the police, it's incredibly unlikely it would have gone well. The people fighting weren't white, for one thing. The cops would probably roll up, throw their authority around, and get violent. Possibly murder the guy. Not what you want. Even if they didn't do violence immediately, subjecting that guy to the criminal justice system is not what you want, either.
In my imagination there should be a department of deescalation specialists. No guns. No arrest powers. Maybe some snacks.
But yeah, policing in the US is a tragedy at pretty much every level.
Back on topic, responsibility could maybe fall onto the platform. There are suicide prevention services. Maybe there could be mass shooting prevention services.
In my imagination there should be a department of deescalation specialists. No guns. No arrest powers. Maybe some snacks.
As a teacher, I had to do home visits for every student in my homeroom. Two families threatened to kill me. One by siccing their dogs on me, the other by just shooting me. The entire purpose of my visit was just to meet them and let them know I care about their kids
What do you do when these de-escalation specialists go to talk to a person who is crazy-posting, and have their lives threatened?
I don't ask this facetiously. I think this is a good idea. But these workers will run into situations like this, and more to the point, opponents of these programs will definitely bring this sort of thing up when trying to sway public opinion.
I legit don't have an answer.
Some of the earliest modern police forces in the US were slave patrols in the south. In the north, Boston was the first city to have a modern professional force. It grew out of a system where private companies were hiring their own security to protect their cargo in the Boston port, and offloaded that cost onto the public.
Professional, publicly funded policing in the US has long been there to protect the interests of the powerful.
The solution is to remove access to firearms capable of rapid rates of fire from the general public.
That would help with mass shootings, very likely, yes. I feel like there's also things we (or various platforms) could do to address the parent category of mass murder
Yes. The solution is not to curb netneutrality and online discourse though. But to have a better social net and family support that can catch individuals like these or prevent them completely.
And Czehia has or had these. Which is why the rate of mass shootings, with a country that actually allows people to own guns, is much lower than in the country where that has virtually no support and more lax gun laws.
I mean in the US, threatening to murder someone is a crime. I'm sure it is there too.
If this was sort of generalized, we sell bumper stickers like that. There's a post on active with one.
probably, this is a price for freedom
You can't have absolute freedom in a civilized society. That idea is also self-contradictory when your freedom causes others to lose theirs.
"Foree-dumb"
Coward...
America continues to be global leader in exporting culture
Love the innovation! It's not easy making everything about America, but by god people always find a way!
tbh america and domestic mass shootings are pretty much synonymous at this point. this time (this one rare time) an immediate association with the us seems appropriate.
It was inspired by a Russian mass shooting according to the actual article.. let's stop being ignorant
which in no way nullifies the overwhelming figures seen in the us.
This is one of the scariest pictures I've seen in my life
I believe that's a cop pictured in the thumbnail
Edit: I'm wrong! I misread
Read the article, itâs not
misread & saw his other photo which looked super different. ty!
A blurry picture of a man with a gun? Ooh spoOOOOooky.
Hope they'll figure out how to never make it happen again.
And yes, for God's sake, ban firearms.
Doc ock?
Lots of talk about them allowing guns, as if that's what caused this, but let's look at the big picture..
Countries that allow guns have massively more gun deaths, that shouldn't be surprising
Edit: it's worth noting that the US has had more mass shootings this year than the entire history of Europe apparently, according to that list.
According to that list? Mass shootings in Europe are extremely rare.
I'm not arguing that fact, my point is just that more guns will always result in more mass shootings. Guns should not be a right.
guns will always result in more mass shootings
Then why aren't there any other mass shootings in the Czech Republic?
Considering that mass shootings aren't a common thing in the Western world as a whole, that isn't really relevant. One is more than most countries in the West have had in decades.
There were 2 others in the last decade or so
Absolutely. I just think that it's silly to draw attention to guns being easily attainable in this context, when there have been so many more mass shootings in other European countries.
Guns don't kill people
You are correct. People kill people. With guns
So guns aren't the problem.
The timeline for the shootings seems like it's that economic fuckery and downturns precede upticks in shootings. It is very alarming that there has been three of them this year.
đ§
Switzerland does well with guns.
In Switzerland, everyone is trained to use guns
I donât think lack of training was this guys issue.
Switzerland also has heavily regulated ammunition. You can't just go to the store and buy some bullets, like in Czechia
Like Chris Rocks stand up. Charge more for the bullets and people will think more about killing. paraphrase
Very true
Swiss:
vs Czech:
source
The Swiss solution really is what should be followed.
The solution to allow gun ownership is conscription?
No thanks.
If you follow the constitution, the right to bear arms is for a well regulated militia. Not for a stressed 18 year old buying an AR-15 at Walmart to shoot up rioters from another state.
You might not like where that logic goes. The Supreme Court took a stance in United States v. Miller (1939) that the NFA's provisions on short barreled shotguns could be enforced on the basis that it's not a weapon that would be used by a well-regulated militia.
That brings us to a conclusion that literally nobody likes. The government could ban shorty shotguns and .22 rimfire, because those aren't militia weapons. It could not ban fully automatic weapons or even rocket launchers.
We have to come up with something. I am a gun owner. There are legitimate uses for them. But a rifle marksman course requirement? Gun safety classes? 30 day waiting period? Mental health screening? Accountability if you buy it for someone else who uses it to commit violence? Anything?
Something has to stop the senseless violence.
I know that it won't stop it.
People in Brittain use knives.... Acid in the middle east.
The difference there is that the harm is limited to a few people and not these mass casualty events.
Yes totally forgot about that the people part...go read some federalist papers and a few history books the 2nd is for the people not the militia.
Hey don't cry about unborn babies but be pro school shootings there bud. The founders had single shot musket rifles not semi automatic rifles. If you want to be constructionist then ban the sale of anything other than breach loaders with separate shell and powder charge and have a good day.
Isn't California doing something like that?
First off, I'm pro-choice. I'm just not an ignorant naive tool like you seem to be. The founders weren't idiots they knew tech wasn't going to stop, you could also own warships during those days, the equivalent of owning a nuclear attack sub basically. If you think the 2nd only applies to single shot muskets, then the Internet isn't covered by the first amendment in your mind. Being ignorant of history doesn't magically make you correct.
Look, there are ways to make this work. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have guns. I own one myself. However, maybe there should be a 30 day waiting period? Mental health fitness assessment? Anything?
If you're actually wanting to solve our violence problem, you go to the root of our societies issues, not the tool used. All of these things below would curb our violence as a whole 1000xs more than any new gun control can.
We can start with:
Single payer healthcare
Ending the War on Drugs
Ending Qualified immunity
Properly funding our schools and not just rich white suburb schools.
Build more schools and hire more teachers for proper pay so the class room sizes aren't 30-40 kids for one teacher.
UBI (at least start talking about it) once AI takes over most of the blue collar jobs.
End for profit prisons
Enforce the laws already on the books
Make sure there are safety nets for poor families so the kids don't turn to violence/gangs to survive.
Increase the minimum wage
Recreate our mental healthcare so kids don't turn to the internet for support. And to help veterans not end up as a suicide number.
Actively make a law to solidify Pro-choice rights. More unwanted children do not help our situation.
Banning Insider Trading for Congress
Term limits
Ranked Choice Voting so we can move away from a 2 party system
Based.
If people learned how to defend themselves and then also everyone knew how to use them suddenly gun culture changes and it's like a tool instead of a status symbol. If you don't want to serve, there are non-combat roles. If you don't like it then hey maybe you should invent bullet proof kids.
I wish they'd bring back the draft. Draft men and women over the age of 18 for like two years; it doesn't need to be for combat roles either. You get job training, you learn self-discipline, how to work in a team, really a lot of life skills. And then when your enlistment is up, you get training on how to find a job, how to write a resume, how to pass an interview, you get to use the GI bill and (in my hypothetical scenario) would keep Tricare. And more people would care about where and when we deploy our military, because they actually have a stake in it now.
The only way someone should be allowed to own a gun is after rigorous training, like in the military.
Only then do you have "good guy with a gun"
So the problem was this guy wasn't trained enough?
Thanks, funniest comment today
Mandatory conscription is probably my most âout thereâ political belief. I think the benefits would be vast! I donât think it would prevent mass shootings in America, though.
Conscription doesn't mean war. It means being prepared. And yes maybe we could be more prepared to deal with this stupidity and remove the gun culture if it wasn't special anymore.
I think one of the benefits would be less war since every citizen would be personally affected by it. Also all the public works and infrastructure. And healthcare. It could be great! Maybe it would help with all the âlonely menâ culture that we hear so much about, and likely plays into some of the gun culture. I guess weâll never know since that wonât happen here, though.
I bet those dead university students enjoyed all that constitutional freedom.
I would like to hear about the killers psychology and motivation (don't care about the fuckers name) and what is being done to prevent such motivation from manifesting again.
We don't often talk about this in the limelight, but it's important. We need to understand how they got here if we want to have any hope of reducing the odds of that happening again.
That takes time to find out, give it a few days.
From the article:
I don't want to ruin internet privacy, but who has ideas on how to handle this better? I feel like if someone's posting "I wanna do a mass shooting" something should happen. I don't want the state or private enterprise to be able to abuse that, though.
deleted by creator
I have long thought that the police as an institution in the US is, shall we say, not good.
One time I was walking home from the grocery and I saw a couple having a screaming fight on the street. The guy had taken the woman's phone from her and was holding it up out of her reach. I thought to myself, "Someone should probably do something.. but who? And what?"
If I had called the police, it's incredibly unlikely it would have gone well. The people fighting weren't white, for one thing. The cops would probably roll up, throw their authority around, and get violent. Possibly murder the guy. Not what you want. Even if they didn't do violence immediately, subjecting that guy to the criminal justice system is not what you want, either.
In my imagination there should be a department of deescalation specialists. No guns. No arrest powers. Maybe some snacks.
But yeah, policing in the US is a tragedy at pretty much every level.
Back on topic, responsibility could maybe fall onto the platform. There are suicide prevention services. Maybe there could be mass shooting prevention services.
As a teacher, I had to do home visits for every student in my homeroom. Two families threatened to kill me. One by siccing their dogs on me, the other by just shooting me. The entire purpose of my visit was just to meet them and let them know I care about their kids
What do you do when these de-escalation specialists go to talk to a person who is crazy-posting, and have their lives threatened?
I don't ask this facetiously. I think this is a good idea. But these workers will run into situations like this, and more to the point, opponents of these programs will definitely bring this sort of thing up when trying to sway public opinion.
I legit don't have an answer.
Some of the earliest modern police forces in the US were slave patrols in the south. In the north, Boston was the first city to have a modern professional force. It grew out of a system where private companies were hiring their own security to protect their cargo in the Boston port, and offloaded that cost onto the public.
Professional, publicly funded policing in the US has long been there to protect the interests of the powerful.
The solution is to remove access to firearms capable of rapid rates of fire from the general public.
That would help with mass shootings, very likely, yes. I feel like there's also things we (or various platforms) could do to address the parent category of mass murder
Yes. The solution is not to curb netneutrality and online discourse though. But to have a better social net and family support that can catch individuals like these or prevent them completely.
And Czehia has or had these. Which is why the rate of mass shootings, with a country that actually allows people to own guns, is much lower than in the country where that has virtually no support and more lax gun laws.
I mean in the US, threatening to murder someone is a crime. I'm sure it is there too.
If this was sort of generalized, we sell bumper stickers like that. There's a post on active with one.
probably, this is a price for freedom
You can't have absolute freedom in a civilized society. That idea is also self-contradictory when your freedom causes others to lose theirs.
"Foree-dumb"
Coward...
America continues to be global leader in exporting culture
Love the innovation! It's not easy making everything about America, but by god people always find a way!
tbh america and domestic mass shootings are pretty much synonymous at this point. this time (this one rare time) an immediate association with the us seems appropriate.
It was inspired by a Russian mass shooting according to the actual article.. let's stop being ignorant
which in no way nullifies the overwhelming figures seen in the us.
This is one of the scariest pictures I've seen in my life
I believe that's a cop pictured in the thumbnailEdit: I'm wrong! I misread
Read the article, itâs not
misread & saw his other photo which looked super different. ty!
A blurry picture of a man with a gun? Ooh spoOOOOooky.
My condolences to the families.
Hope they'll figure out how to never make it happen again.
And yes, for God's sake, ban firearms.
Doc ock?
Lots of talk about them allowing guns, as if that's what caused this, but let's look at the big picture..
Countries that allow guns have massively more gun deaths, that shouldn't be surprising
Edit: it's worth noting that the US has had more mass shootings this year than the entire history of Europe apparently, according to that list.
According to that list? Mass shootings in Europe are extremely rare.
I'm not arguing that fact, my point is just that more guns will always result in more mass shootings. Guns should not be a right.
Then why aren't there any other mass shootings in the Czech Republic?
Considering that mass shootings aren't a common thing in the Western world as a whole, that isn't really relevant. One is more than most countries in the West have had in decades.
There were 2 others in the last decade or so
Absolutely. I just think that it's silly to draw attention to guns being easily attainable in this context, when there have been so many more mass shootings in other European countries.
Guns don't kill people
You are correct. People kill people. With guns
So guns aren't the problem.
The timeline for the shootings seems like it's that economic fuckery and downturns precede upticks in shootings. It is very alarming that there has been three of them this year.
Four. The "Serbia" entry is two shootings.