Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SNES_Punk t1_jea416y wrote

Reply to comment by geffe71 in Mass shootings in the US since 2009. A mass shooting is defined as any incident in which four or more people are shot and killed. Since 2009, there have been 306 mass shootings, resulting in 1710 people shot and killed and 1087 people shot and wounded. ---NONE IN RHODE ISLAND! by wyzapped

CA has the 7th lowest rate for gun violence in the country. 9 out of the top 10 states ranked for highest gun violence are red states while 10 out of the top 10 ranked for lowest gun violence are blue states.

Not saying this is a Republican issue, but...wait, yes I am. Scumbag republican lawmakers have the power to change that but they wont.

1

Desperate_Expert_952 t1_jebvrv1 wrote

Nice way to reduce a very complex problem to not only a reductive simplistic look at it with zero depth but also political argument. Sweet good work!

2

SNES_Punk t1_jec376j wrote

Rather than being passive-aggressive. Would you care to explain the complexities behind this? Because to me it sounds like the step in the right direction is either banning civilians from possession of guns, or require mental and physical testing, insurance, and quarterly accountability reports.

1

Desperate_Expert_952 t1_jecjenf wrote

Let me ask you this before I respond further. “What are you trying to prevent/do/accomplish” then I can better address you. Basically what is your end game result that you want to see?

1

SNES_Punk t1_jecwwt2 wrote

There's no endgame. It's just a contemporary topic and I'm looking to discuss it. I'm well aware that the chances of us changing each other's minds is slim to none.

1

Desperate_Expert_952 t1_jedahuv wrote

To back up a bit. Law and policy change or establishment of laws and policies is to tackle some problem or wrong. Example: people are upset other people take their belongings. Solution: create laws against theft and prosecute those that commit theft possible with restitution and punitive jail time etc. we don’t create laws without some form of end in mind.

With that said. Are you looking to stop violence and murder? Do you just not like guns? You said earlier “it would be a step in the right direction” what direction is that? What solution are you in theory stepping to?

1

SNES_Punk t1_jee68iw wrote

>Are you looking to stop violence and murder?

I'd love that, but it's grossly unrealistic. I'd love to see a vast reduction in gun violence, most especially the epidemic of mass shootings that America is facing.

  • Strict gun ownership regulations wouldn't absolve us of gun violence completely, but it would allow less easily accessed firearms.

  • Banning civilian firearm ownership for the foreseeable future also wouldn't completely solve gun violence in the country either. However, I'll use Port Arthur as an example.

  • In April 1996, a shooter killed 35 people and injured 23 others in Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia. That shooting forced the government to make huge changes to their gun ownership amendments, taking guns away from civilians. There have been 3 mass shootings in Australia in the 27 years since Port Arthur. There have been over 100 mass shootings in America since the beginning of this year.

>Do you just not like guns?

Actually the opposite. When I bought my house I was looking to buy a Sig p365 for home defense, but after Uvalde and having my daughter I reconsidered. I trust myself to be responsible and keep it locked up and unloaded, but then it defeats the purpose of having it for home defense if it's so difficult for me to access in a time sensitive situation like a home invasion.

>What solution are you in theory stepping to?

A theoretical reduction in gun violence in America based on a statistical analysis of other countries where the civilians do not have access to guns.

  • Police would be less hostile if they aren't in fear of a simple traffic stop erupting into a shootout

  • A reduction in mass shootings, gang shootings, crimes of passion, road rage shootings, accidental shootings, and gun-related suicides are all reduced

That's really all I want to see. I'm not naive - I know crimes will still be committed, I know there will still be psychos running around naked at train stations trying to stab people. I know illegal arms dealership is a real occurrence. But a reduction in the epidemic of gun violence in America, and only America, is the goal that I'd like to see our government reach.

I'm not saying you're insinuating this at all, but I feel compelled to say it anyway given its such a talked about topic; the second amendment was created for the purpose of suppressing a tyrannical government. People feel if they take guns from us, the government has all the power.

Maybe I'm a nihilist, but I think we're all long passed the point of combating the government. They may not outnumber us, but they sure as hell outdo us in available tech.

  • Better weapons

  • Better armor

  • Better surveillance technologies

  • Tanks/Choppers/Jets/Drones

  • Better training

If we were to step up to the government, they'd squash us like bugs. We all allowed them to stockpile defenses after 9/11 in the wake of passionate Civil defense that we have no chance against them if they decided to start rounding people up like Nazi Germany.

So, to conclude this; there's no viable reason I can see why American civilians should be able to own guns.

Sorry for the long-winded wall of text. I tried to be as concise and clear-cut as possible but I honestly don't blame you in the least if you gave up reading it halfway through.

1