Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

DavidMalony t1_iu5bk7f wrote

Where were all the good guys with guns?

19

XxcOoPeR93xX t1_iu5bu9n wrote

Good guys with guns tend to stay away from areas with large amounts of bad guys with guns

121

Draker-X t1_iu5jgpb wrote

So do cops.

−3

XxcOoPeR93xX t1_iu5oaeh wrote

See my other reply. When you vilify cops, yes they 100% will not risk their life for your community.

−13

Indurum t1_iu5s5ua wrote

It is literally their fucking JOB and WE pay them for it.

7

deletable666 t1_iu9bhac wrote

It actually isn’t their job, and we don’t pay them for that. Their job is to enforce laws and arrest and cite, and money is taken from us to pay them. I didn’t choose to hire the individuals, I don’t get to fire the bad ones, I don’t get to choose what they do.

1

BigbySamMelody t1_iu60bwm wrote

I hate to break it to you, but the courts have ruled it's not the police's job to protect you. They have zero obligation to, even if they see someone trying to stab you to death

0

awtcurtis t1_iu69mix wrote

So why should we praise them again? Seems like they are pretty worthless.

4

RKFTWRN t1_iub8zip wrote

How do you propose they stop something like this. There isn't a cop assigned to follow around every single person 24/7. The cops caught the two guys that did it, seems to be working as intended.

Maybe the motherfuckers shooting each other can stop shooting each other?

0

awtcurtis t1_iubawzg wrote

Hmmm, maybe we could try any number of solutions that the rest of the civilized world has used to curb gun violence?

2

XxcOoPeR93xX t1_iu5w0fs wrote

We pay our politicians too but it's kinda expected that they don't really care about us. What's the difference?

−3

Draker-X t1_iu5re12 wrote

Did the villification lead to the "not risking life", or was it the other way around?

When I was growing up in the 80s and 90s I thought cops were heroes, and I would have had no issue approaching one on the street or being cool when they pulled me over for nothing (which I was, three times. No tickets, just "warnings".)

Now that I'm older and I've heard hundreds of news stories about systematic, violent police misbehavior (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Burge), see them walking around with rifles on their chests like they're in a war zone and know how they abuse and kill non-white people on the regular for minor issues? I want nothing to do with them.

I actually feel LESS safe when there are police around. I don't think that's the way it's supposed to work.

5

XxcOoPeR93xX t1_iu5sfl5 wrote

You sir have been effectively brainwashed into hating the only people tasked with protecting you. Congratulations.

−6

Lastguyintheline t1_iu5ugcj wrote

Uvalde would like a word with you.

6

XxcOoPeR93xX t1_iu5xaq5 wrote

I agree Ulvade was gross. And the only solution is being able to defend yourself. That doesn't change the fact that the police are still the only ones tasked with protecting you. Sure they may fail at that task and it is a shame that they do, but there's no one else out there to save you.

4

awtcurtis t1_iu6a342 wrote

Or maybe we hold them accountable for their failures and crimes and don't act like they are beyond criticism, since a lack of accountability is EXACTLY what causes bad policing.

4

XxcOoPeR93xX t1_iu6gm86 wrote

Hey man, you're telling the wrong guy. I'm not licking anybody's boots. Police should 100% be accountable for their actions. Not just to the public either, but their peers need to speak up too. The biggest issues arise when there's complacency among a whole department. That is the situation that breeds police gangs.

Either way, I just think its a bit pathetic when you let the media convince you that cops are evil racist killers when youve never personally experienced that. You've just let the talking box dictate your own viewpoint which is complete seperate from your experience. It's silly.

0

awtcurtis t1_iu7mvk9 wrote

When there is extremely well documented, empirical data that shows systemic racism throughout the justice system, from cops to prosecutors, to judges, I don't have to rely on my personal anecdotal experience. The data shows the inherent racism

1

Fidonkus t1_iu7vn7l wrote

They are tasked with violently enforcing the law. This is not the same as protecting people.

1

awtcurtis t1_iu69wbv wrote

Ah, nothing like the brainwashed accusing other people of being brainwashed. Communities around the US have decades of data showing systemic police violence against them, but sure, keep parroting right wing talking points.

−1

XxcOoPeR93xX t1_iu6f986 wrote

Saying "YoUrE ParRoTiNg TaLkInG pOiNTs" doesn't just negate the argument lol. If 99% of people say "you should brush your teeth" you can't just say they're "parroting talking points" lol.

You're delusional.

1

tehmlem t1_iu5drtk wrote

Well that makes it seem like they're not a very effective solution to bad guys with guns, huh?

−6

XxcOoPeR93xX t1_iu5nbww wrote

See but here's the thing, when you attack and vilify the people you PAY to be the good guys with guns, this sort of thing tends to happen.

An area has high crime. High crime leads to a large police presence. A large police presence in a black neighborhood means racism. Racism means the good guys with guns leave. Good guys with guns don't go anywhere near bad place where they're the only good guy. Boom, high crime area with no good guys who have guns.

Also, kinda stupid to argue good guys with guns don't stop bad guys with guns. What stops bad guys with guns? Gun free zones? Old age? Curious about how you plan on handling a bad guy with a gun.

−22

Lastguyintheline t1_iu5ue91 wrote

Ummm if those people way pay to be good guys acted like good guys more (and self-policed their bad apples), there wouldn’t be so much concern.

13

Doctrevil t1_iu5wiwr wrote

Excuse me, are you suggesting police be policed? Sir, that is what internal affairs is for! Anyways, it appears you have a complaint about a fellow officer's supposed misconduct, we're going to have to ask you to turn in your badge and gun.

8

tehmlem t1_iu5qlo6 wrote

What did the cops do here to prevent violence again? What's that? Jack shit?

5

XxcOoPeR93xX t1_iu5rdim wrote

You didn't answer my question. How do you stop a bad guy with a gun?

Also yes, kinda hard to stop a driveby at a funeral. Not sure you could've done any better.

−4

Draker-X t1_iu5whut wrote

>You didn't answer my question. How do you stop a bad guy with a gun?

Not let them have it in the first place like other countries do.

Don't nations and continents around the world have "bad guys"? Canada? Europe? Russia? Asia? The Middle East? Oceania? Why is there so little gun violence compared to the U.S. (or the rest of the Western Hemisphere- apparently "West is Best" if you want to shoot people)?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

−3

XxcOoPeR93xX t1_iu5zo0d wrote

It's not about firearms it's about gang violence. Follow the cookie trail of gangs and you'll find what you need to know.

Has nothing to do with gun laws.

−2

Draker-X t1_iu5vk2a wrote

>An area has high crime. High crime leads to a large police presence. A large police presence in a black neighborhood means racism.

How did you jump from "high crime area" to "black neighborhood"?

4

XxcOoPeR93xX t1_iu5yqws wrote

People asking to defund the police aren't in gated communities in Maine.

The majority of calls for defunding the police were in minority communities in Baltimore, Chicago, and Minneapolis. Largely over already racial accusations.

4

SohndesRheins t1_iu7ivbv wrote

Um, statistics? Whether you want to ascribe a racial or socioeconomic reason, predominantly black neighborhoods tend to have higher crime rates and denying that is silly. Not to say that no white areas can be high crime, but when you look at a macro scale that is what you see.

0

red_sutter t1_iu5v53u wrote

Shooting themselves or their wives in “gun cleaning accidents”

−5

celebrityDick t1_iu5eziv wrote

> Where were all the good guys with guns?

The state of Pennsylvania disarmed them and said police were sufficient to protect people

−8

fatcIemenza t1_iu5fuuj wrote

Why would the gerrymandered Republican Pennsylvania legislature do that? 🤔

18

celebrityDick t1_iu629h9 wrote

> Why would the gerrymandered Republican Pennsylvania legislature do that?

Demanding that peasants get permission from the state before they can legally carry firearms is a bipartisan phenomenon

1

Xencard65 t1_iu5wtzk wrote

I already saw this on “Colors”.

4

[deleted] t1_iu58yz7 wrote

[removed]

−1

nsfwuseraccnt t1_iu5hul7 wrote

That thing we have too many of, it's shitty people. We need less of them.

31

Appropriate_Ad9108 t1_iu5oiuh wrote

We need less of both. Too many shitty people and too many guns. Addressing both issues would take a lot of work, effort, and time. I’m not confident either issue will be addressed in the near future if ever.

4

westplains1865 t1_iu5gyb7 wrote

>It’s like there’s a thing we have too many of that keeps causing all of these problems.

Like violent gang members who don't follow current laws and exploit anything, even a supposed sacrosanct event like a funeral, to continue their violence against each other?

21

Ares1935 t1_iu6niqq wrote

is the answer gangs?

10

yamiyaiba t1_iu8kmjf wrote

We tried that already. The police failed us.

1

Ares1935 t1_iu8ygb5 wrote

Not sure if that's true. Communities have done everything they could to hinder effective policing.

But they aren't doing anything to control it themselves either.

White kid starts acting violent, everyone looks to the parent to intervene. Black or Latin kid joins a gang, does the parent get any blame?

2

Zebo91 t1_iu6zltc wrote

Gilead doesn't have this problem

1

LordFluffy t1_iu5blfs wrote

> It’s like there’s a thing we have too many of that keeps causing all of these problems.

Right. Because surely no one would ever commit violence with something else. And the people who carried this out were innocent as lambs until the mean old guns whispered demonic influence into their virgin ears, making them go out and commit heinous acts.

Or, just maybe, it's more complicated than that.

−7

Yousoggyyojimbo t1_iu5bz1d wrote

You don't see the same volume of attacks but just with other things in places that aren't flooded with guns. The ready availability of ideal tools for this shit is a core of the problem.

Hell, the variance in gun violence just between states with tighter and looser gun control shows a hard difference.

9

LordFluffy t1_iu5cxbc wrote

> You don't see the same volume of attacks but just with other things in places that aren't flooded with guns.

You don't look outside of high GDP countries, then.

You also don't look at the countries you're thinking of prior to the gun controls you'd like us to emulate; you'll find they didn't have our levels of violence then, either.

> The ready availability of ideal tools for this shit is a core of the problem.

No, it isn't. Guns don't provide motive. A killer absent a gun is still a killer that just has to change tactics. A person who's not a killer with a gun is no danger to anyone provided the minimum of awareness and caution.

>Hell, the variance in gun violence just between states with tighter and looser gun control shows a hard difference.

And, as we know, all states are identical in all other ways except gun laws, just like other countries are just the US with fewer Glocks.

−6

Yousoggyyojimbo t1_iu5dcf4 wrote

>You don't look outside of high GDP countries, then.

I like how you started this by framing that the countries that don't agree with your assertion don't count because you don't want them to.

7

LordFluffy t1_iu5f0hi wrote

> I like how you started this by framing that the countries that don't agree with your assertion don't count because you don't want them to.

My assertions so far are:

  • People use things other than guns to kill each other
  • Guns are inanimate objects not demons.

Neither of those is untrue and neither of those vary from country to country.

My point is that when you look at countries over time, their homicide rate and their gun laws don't always track like you'd expect. It has nothing to do with what I want or don't want.

My other assertion, delivered passive-aggressively I know, is that the problem of violence in the United States is complicated and does not hinge on any one factor, including means. Even if we limit it to that, there is a whole lot of nuance and footnotes that have to be added.

I know nothing about his incident than people were hurt, a gun or guns was used to do the damage, and it happened at a funeral. I don't know why it happened, if someone was targeted, if it is related to any other issue like crime or domestic abuse, if the guns were acquired legally, recently or anything else. I do, however, know that all of those could affect the "how do we stop things like this from happening in the future" equation.

Tell me what you think we should do and then how do you think we should implement that on a practical level, please. What do you think is the likely outcome?

1

celebrityDick t1_iu5flnc wrote

> I like how you started this by framing that the countries that don't agree with your assertion don't count because you don't want them to.

Just a countries that don't agree with your assertion don't count because you don't want them to. Call it even then ...?

0

tehmlem t1_iu5dx9w wrote

Wait, is your argument really "Compare us to poor countries and failed states so we look good?" Why would we not be compared to our economic and political peers which do not have these problems?

7

LordFluffy t1_iu5fae7 wrote

> Wait, is your argument really "Compare us to poor countries and failed states so we look good?"

No. It's that if you're saying "this doesn't happen anywhere else" you need to put an asterisk behind that because it requires some qualification.

> Why would we not be compared to our economic and political peers which do not have these problems?

We should be. We aren't, however, those countries + guns. There are many differences and I think some of them are just as if not more significant to our rates of violence than firearms.

3

Bumpass t1_iu5djjf wrote

It takes a lot more to stab someone than it does to wiggle a trigger finger and point.

Your argument is the defensive, overly-simple one, I hear everywhere.

Guns make deaths of other people too attainable for the person using it. An SUV driven by a madman isn't going to drive through classrooms full of kids. A knife can't sweep over a crowd of thousands from a hotel window and kill 60 people.

Guns may not be the only problem. But they're one of our biggest problems. It's a tool for violence. At least my knife can cut some vegetables and my SUV can drive my kids to school. A gun can't do much of anything useful other than harm other living things and people.

9

jpm0724 t1_iu5gwxd wrote

You want me to link you the Franklin regional incident or do you just wanna look it up for yourself?

−2

Bumpass t1_iu5ktij wrote

I know about it.

There have been at least 40 school shootings this year. Responsible for at least 122 deaths. How many people were stabbed to death in us schools this last year?

3

jpm0724 t1_iu5p4sd wrote

So shooting deaths are more relevant to you than stabbing deaths. Got it. Make sense to only care about the statistics that prove your point. Your way of arguing is divisive. Obviously there’s a need for gun reform, but you’re an absolute idiot if you think for a second that this country, of all countries, wouldn’t remain to have the same issues. You think a war on guns would be any more successful than the war on drugs? If you have that optimism, I envy it. Because the same bad people will do the same bad things with the same bad weapons.

0

Bumpass t1_iu5w695 wrote

No. Shooting deaths are more numerous. Therefor more relevant.

If I have a swimming pool, and the pool develops two holes - one hole loses 1000 gallons of water per day, the other loses 10 gallon per day - which hole should I patch first to minimize loss of water? The bigger hole. But I will not ignore the other hole; it's repair is triaged to a later time.

Numbers matter. But I won't call you an absolute idiot for disagreeing with that. You're concerned, just as I am. You don't sound like someone who wants people to be hurt by knives or guns. And neither am I. Bad people with illegal weapons scare me too. And I'm not optimistic. I think we're in for a lot more gut wrenching news, because there are a lot of people. And many people are overwhelmed with problems. And some of those people will process what they can't control in their lives, by finding their moment of control in an act of violence. Whether or not guns are the tool for violence.

1

jpm0724 t1_iu6eulu wrote

We haven’t even started with making it a felony if your weapon is used in a mass casualty event. Think about that!

2

jpm0724 t1_iu6c4f4 wrote

You’re analogy doesn’t make sense because it compares figurative gallons of water to literal life. It’s the absolute biggest problem, the mental gymnastic it takes to try to point at one thing and call it bad and disregard real life. Real life is, you’re willing to disregard the countless times and ways firearms have helped save lives, wether by existing, or actually being utilized. And that it’s okay to lose those lives in the future, in order to make you feel better today. Your patching a hole thought works better in this regard.

The best part is, people love to point to other countries, and say oh look! They have assault weapons bans, they have hand gun bans, complete fire arm bans, etc. they are not the MOST smuggled country in the world, they are not one of the epicenters of gang violence. They do not have one of the worst prison system and some of the highest recidivism rates. You wanna talk about bandaging the 10 gallon per day problem? Pointing at an inanimate object in one of the most mentally unhinged, corrupt countries on the planet and saying we need to ban it, is that.

0

LordFluffy t1_iu5gelm wrote

> It takes a lot more to stab someone than it does to wiggle a trigger finger and point.

Yeah, I'm sure your vast combat experience gave you this informed opinion.

All things being equal, a gunshot from most calibers suitable for self defense is going to be more deadly than a knife wound almost always. That said, when it comes to people doing harm to one another, things are never equal. I've seen stories, recent stories, of people killing more people with a knife than another person was able to with a rifle.

But that's just arguing tactics. It also invites the question of how firearms are used in self defense, which I don't think is an insignificant factor.

> Your argument is the defensive, overly-simple one, I hear everywhere.

No, my sarcastic statement is one part of a much larger discussion expressed in the spirit of the comment to which I was responding. Or put another way, you don't know what my argument is.

> An SUV driven by a madman isn't going to drive through classrooms full of kids.

The worst mass shooting in the US killed 60 people and wounded many times that. In Nice, France a guy killed 80 people with a truck. The worst school shooting in the US left 32 people dead. The worst school massacre in the US was carried out with explosives and killed 34, iirc.

You're arguing tactics, not absolutes.

> A knife can't sweep over a crowd of thousands from a hotel window and kill 60 people.

And of course the millionaire with his own plane could not concievably have done anything another way. If he just had knives, he'd have pitched them from the same window. Or not.

> But they're one of our biggest problems.

And again, I disagree with you. If anything, it's a symptom of the problem not the problem itself.

>A gun can't do much of anything useful other than harm other living things and people.

Yes. It's a purpose built weapon. However, sometimes that is called for. Because you can't change a tire with one does not mean that it is useless, just rarely needed.

−6

Head-Ad4690 t1_iu5fj56 wrote

When people commit violence with something else, a lot fewer people die.

5

LordFluffy t1_iu5h1i4 wrote

Really?

A guy a couple of days ago killed two people in a school. He had 600 rounds of ammo.

Back a number of years ago, a guy shot up a Waffle House with a similar rifle; they still put the incident in infographics. He killed four.

A few weeks back, a guy killed 10 in Canada in a stabbing spree.

In 2016, a guy stabbed 19 seniors to death with a pocket knife and injured over 20 more.

In some times, in some places, I'd even say more frequently, you're correct. But again, tactics. Not absolutes.

0

Head-Ad4690 t1_iu5iocf wrote

Yes, really.

The worst mass shooting in the US killed 58 people. #2 killed 49. There have been 9 that killed more than 20.

Can you find me an instance where someone stabbed over 50 people to death?

There’s a reason the Army sends soldiers into battle with guns, not just knives.

5

LordFluffy t1_iu5jda8 wrote

> Can you find me an instance where someone stabbed over 50 people to death?

One individual, no. Highest I know of there is 19.

However, the Nice Truck attack killed 87. Wounded more than Vegas, too.

Arguing. Tactics.

> There’s a reason the Army sends soldiers into battle with guns, not just knives.

Yes, guns are effective weapons. The Army generally isn't trying to indiscriminately kill unarmed people, though, which does change the equation a lot.

3

Head-Ad4690 t1_iu5k93o wrote

And yet, there are still vastly more gun attacks, and vastly more victims of those attacks, than with trucks or knives.

If they’re just as effective, why do these murdering bastards bother with guns?

There are a lot of times where armies do set out to indiscriminately kill people. In modern times, they always use guns to do it, or worse things.

3

LordFluffy t1_iu5klmb wrote

> And yet, there are still vastly more gun attacks, and vastly more victims of those attacks, than with trucks or knives.

Yep. And yet, you are still missing the point.

> If they’re just as effective...

Show me where I claimed they were and I'll tell you.

1

Head-Ad4690 t1_iu5kvmn wrote

I said a lot fewer people die when other weapons are used, and your response was, “Really?” Followed by examples attempting to refute my statement.

If your point isn’t that other weapons are just as effective as guns, then what is your point exactly?

4

LordFluffy t1_iu5lu69 wrote

> I said a lot fewer people die when other weapons are used, and your response was, “Really?” Followed by examples attempting to refute my statement.

You stated an absolute that should have been a conditional. I backed my refutation with examples. If you'd bothered to read all the words, you'd have seen this too:

> In some times, in some places, I'd even say more frequently, you're correct.

> If your point isn’t that other weapons are just as effective as guns, then what is your point exactly?

That guns don't cause crime any more than matches cause housefires. What causes it are people deciding they're going to go kill some other people. They then avail themselves of whatever means they have at their disposal that are likely to do the job. If they don't have any one particular means, they have options, and will likely adapt their approach to accommodate for any deficiencies.

The hope is that if we ban this one way to hurt people or even severely limit access to it, stories like this one will be sad history, not daily events. I think that's naive; a LOT has to change before that becomes true and there are no, and I do mean no, quick solutions. I think it would be best that we look at things from a holistic perspective and address the more essential causes of violence.

Otherwise, what you have is a bet: The number of lives saved by limited access to guns will outnumber the lives that would be saved by defensive uses that are hindered by the same restrictions.

I just have never thought that was a good bet.

Need any clarification?

−1

Head-Ad4690 t1_iu5o847 wrote

Yeah: what about my statement needs to be conditional?

Are you just looking for an “on average” or “usually” tacked on, or what?

3

LordFluffy t1_iu5ovhu wrote

"Usually" or "most often" seems accurate. Even "the majority of the time".

1

Head-Ad4690 t1_iu5p4nd wrote

My statement was general and such things aren’t expected to apply to every single instance. Without any qualifiers, it can be and is intended to be read as applying to the aggregate. You just misinterpreted it in the one way that would make it wrong, then went on a rant against that misinterpretation. Congrats.

3

LordFluffy t1_iu5qe2j wrote

> Congrats

Did you limber up before you made that stretch?

1

Head-Ad4690 t1_iu5qja7 wrote

You managed to interpret my general statement as something like “every single imaginable instance of mass murder would be less deadly with another weapon than with a gun” when that is clearly not what it said, and somehow I’m the one stretching?

3

LordFluffy t1_iu5qqbg wrote

I can only read what you wrote.

I've also had this conversation enough to know that when people make such statements it's less implied "most often" and more implied "in so many that any others are statistically insignificant".

1

Head-Ad4690 t1_iu5r1hs wrote

And what’s wrong with that, exactly? The gun will be more deadly the vast majority of the time.

3

LordFluffy t1_iu5rajp wrote

> The gun will be more deadly the vast majority of the time.

"Vast" I think is an overstatement.

And again, this is centering the conversation on one means of violence in the US which I think is myopic.

1

Head-Ad4690 t1_iu5rg0i wrote

Well, I don’t think it’s an overstatement. Again, the people to whom it matters most, the mass-murdering fuckheads, nearly always choose a gun when they can.

3

LordFluffy t1_iu5rqff wrote

> Again, the people to whom it matters most, the mass-murdering fuckheads, nearly always choose a gun when they can.

Mass murder is horrific. It is also the least of the violence in the US.

I think if you put the effort in to helping victims of abuse relocate and become financially independant, just for example, you'd save far more lives than if you melted all the guns in the US to scrap, much less any actually feasible gun control measure.

1

Head-Ad4690 t1_iu5rwtq wrote

Nice deflection.

3

LordFluffy t1_iu5sia1 wrote

No, kind of my whole damn point.

The goal is to save lives, yes? On this we can agree, I hope.

The effort to implement restrictive gun control I think has cost the left more political capitol than it's been worth. I think it's helped the right and also given some very terrible people a symbol (along with the mythologizing of certain weapons).

Furthermore, I didn't pick domestic abuse haphazardly. There's a big correlation between abuse and mass murder. Even in the narrow window of violence we're talking about, I think you'd see better results trying to undercut motive rather than restrict means.

I'm not deflecting. I'm just not putting on blinders to the larger issues at hand.

1

Head-Ad4690 t1_iu5t15b wrote

If that was your whole damned point then you would have led with that. Instead, you talked about individual instances of knife and vehicle violence as if that somehow proved something.

Here are two statements I hope we can both agree on although I won’t be surprised if you find some way to argue:

  1. Guns are, in general, a far superior tool of mass murder than knives or other easily accessible weapons.
  2. Mass murder is not the top priority if your goal is to save lives by whatever means you can.
3

LordFluffy t1_iu5td9y wrote

> Instead, you talked about individual instances of knife and vehicle violence as if that somehow proved something.

Because I was responding to particular statements you made.

> Here are two statements I hope we can both agree on although I won’t be surprised if you find some way to argue

I think any objection I'd have would be nitpicking.

1

Draker-X t1_iu5liah wrote

>Because surely no one would ever commit violence with something else.

Why is there at least one shooting in the U.S. every day where multiple people are injured or killed, but not constant mass stabbings, mass SUV killings, mass bombings, mass chokings, etc?

Not isolated incidents you have to go back to 2016 to remember. Every day.

2

LordFluffy t1_iu5nde4 wrote

> Why is there at least one shooting in the U.S. every day where multiple people are injured or killed, but not constant mass stabbings, mass SUV killings, mass bombings, mass chokings, etc?

People choose the most effective means at their disposal. My point is not that other means are always as effective as firearms. My point is that absent firearms, people are still going to kill each other. The guns didn't cause the incident and absent them such incidents would still occur.

Which is one factor in a much larger puzzle.

> Not isolated incidents you have to go back to 2016 to remember. Every day.

Most of those "every day" incidents have no fatalities. I'm not saying that makes them okay or better, but it does deserve attention.

The reason is those are not murders, they're aggravated assault. When you look at the number of aggravated assaults in the US by weapon, you find that firearms are involved in a minority of them. They are, yes, involved in a majority of homicides.

There are lots of homicides you never hear about because they don't involve guns and aren't particularly newsworthy. In fact, 1/3 of the homicides in the US are committed with something other than a firearm. (EDIT: I went back and checked the CDC's numbers and my statement was incorrect. It's closer to 1/4, not 1/3)

That's still a hell of a lot of homicides, objectively and in comparison to other countries.

Which is, again, to say that it's a more complicated problem than any one means.

3

Draker-X t1_iu5pg16 wrote

>People choose the most effective means at their disposal.

So, if we took away more efficient means of violence from people (semi-auto long guns) and forced them to use less efficient means (handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, pipe bombs, knives, autos, their bare hands), there would still be a high number of aggravated assaults (which is bad) but fewer homicides (which is good).

Some people that would have died would instead be injured, and I'm guessing some that would have been injured wouldn't be injured at all.

This all sounds like a win-win-win to me.

> Which is, again, to say that it's a more complicated problem than any one means.

Yes, but a sizable number of people want to look at ANYTHING but guns.

I want to look at things other than guns (the state of mental healthcare in the U.S. is appalling, and needs to be reformed and strengthened ASAP), but the ubiquity and ease of acquisition of guns and ammo is a big part of the problem and need to be addressed.

5

LordFluffy t1_iu5qb1t wrote

> (semi-auto long guns)

You do know that most homicides by gun, including mass murders, are committed with handguns, right?

> ...there would still be a high number of aggravated assaults (which is bad) but fewer homicides (which is good).

Maybe. See, guns are not just one sided. There are around 100k defensive gun uses in the US. Some of those likely are inconsequential, some may be a life saved, and some may be many lives saved. Disarmament is likely to affect the law abiding more than the felonious, so it will likely impact defensive use as much if not more than illicit misuse.

Then it becomes a bet. I've never thought it was a very good one.

0

Draker-X t1_iu5ufav wrote

> You do know that most homicides by gun, including mass murders, are committed with handguns, right?

> Since 1985 there has been a known total 54 mass shootings involving rifles, mostly semi-automatics. This figure is underreported though, as it excludes the multiple semi-automatic (and fully automatic) rifles used in the 2017 Las Vegas Strip massacre – the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, killing 58 and wounding 546. In fact, semi-automatic rifles were featured in four of the five deadliest mass shootings, being used in the Orlando nightclub massacre, Sandy Hook Elementary massacre and Texas First Baptist Church massacre.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

How about we just focus on the low-hanging fruit and try to lessen the effects?

> There are around 100k defensive gun uses in the US.

Are there numbers on how many of those are semi-auto long guns vs. pistols and shotguns? I'd like to know how many people use those types of weapons for "defensive purposes".

> Disarmament is likely to affect the law abiding more than the felonious

Good thing I don't want to "disarm" anyone, just outlaw one particular style of weapon and see what happens.

1

LordFluffy t1_iu5xrzt wrote

> How about we just focus on the low-hanging fruit and try to lessen the effects?

Going for the "low hanging fruit" got us the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs.

Look up the Virginia Tech shooting.

> Are there numbers on how many of those are semi-auto long guns vs. pistols and shotguns?

Not of which I'm aware, though I imagine that handguns are still number one.

> Good thing I don't want to "disarm" anyone, just outlaw one particular style of weapon and see what happens.

Okay, so how do you intend to do that?

This isn't 1994. The proposed AWB's I've seen are the same "by feature" drivel that was passed then to dubious results. Between the millions in circulation, the advent of 3d printing, and the existence of things like 80% lowers, not to mention the extreme politicization and divide on the issue, I don't think you're going to see many benefits.

And again, even if you do ban scary black rifles (though assault weapons were by the 1994 definition rifles, pistols, and shotguns with certain features) then people simply turn to other firearms or other weapons (remember the earlier statement about handguns?).

Addressing the fewer than 400 homicides by rifle a year seems a terrible way to address the overall problem of violence or even the the problem of mass murder.

EDIT: And such bans would, in fact, disarm more people than you realize if it includes any sort of mandatory buyback/confiscation.

1

jatufin t1_iu6pqrm wrote

First I read Brighton, UK. WTF?! But then I realized it was in US. Who cares.

−2

90swasbest t1_iu70hz4 wrote

Badly aimed 21 gun salute.

Damn tragedy.

−2

mymar101 t1_iu5blqa wrote

Is this what the 2nd amendment is for?

−7

celebrityDick t1_iu5f7x9 wrote

Apparently the Founding Fathers were silent on the question of gang funerals

27

mymar101 t1_iu5h7ej wrote

I guess we’re going to ignore all the other non gang related gun deaths? Until further notice I’ve decided the reason the 2nd amendment exists for the sole purpose of mass casualty events.

−6

Rappingraptor117 t1_iu5ouyt wrote

> ignore all the other non gang related gun deaths

As much as you guys ignore all the times people have saved themselves and their family by having a gun.

6

mymar101 t1_iu5pcfq wrote

I think the Uvalde kids would disagree with that statement.

2

Indurum t1_iu5smjl wrote

Why do idiots like you think it is only EVERYONE has a gun with no restrictions or no guns at all? We can tell if someone is buying too much cough syrup but we have nothing in place to monitor gun purchases.

−1

celebrityDick t1_iu6490l wrote

>I guess we’re going to ignore all the other non gang related gun deaths?

You don't have to ignore them, per se, but maybe it would be helpful if you stop suggesting that the violence committed by gangbangers in possession of illegally-obtained firearms is somehow related to the lawful exercise of rights enshrined in the constitution.

1

mymar101 t1_iu6be0z wrote

Shouldn’t matter. Gun violence is gun violence whether or not it’s gang related. I’d there a reason we’re making the distinction? Or does their skin color matter to you that much?

−2

celebrityDick t1_iu6isme wrote

> I’d there a reason we’re making the distinction?

As the one making such a distinction, you should direct that question towards yourself. Peacefully exercising one's rights isn't a form of gun violence, as you originally suggested.

>Or does their skin color matter to you that much?

Skin color must matter a lot to you, as you felt the need to mention it

2

[deleted] t1_iu6l819 wrote

[removed]

1

celebrityDick t1_iu707ky wrote

> I'm not the one making the distinction. You did. You said this was gang violence and so we shouldn't care whether or not a few criminals died.

Nope. I said that criminals shooting people with illegal / stolen firearms has nothing to do with the 2A or individuals exercising their rights, as you originally suggested.

>Should a person who stole a pack of gum deserve death? Or should a woman who decided not to wear a hijab in Iran anymore deserve death? What crime removes my right to have my day in court?

Not sure how this has anything to do with the previous conversation, but it's interesting that you mention Iran within the context of you questioning the right of individuals to bear arms. If the Iranian citizenry were armed, the Iranian government wouldn't be getting away with a fraction of the crap it's pulling right now

1

mymar101 t1_iu7826z wrote

Ah, so the 2nd amendment is for shooting anyone we don't agree with. Gotcha. Maybe I completely read that part wrong. Also, maybe I replied to the wrong comment, but you people are all the same. 2nd amendment is the most important right above everything. If someone is labeled a criminal they deserve whatever's coming to them. Oh and you're pro "life." I was using those as examples as to when do I should I just be shot by any old person who thinks I've broken the law? After all if I steal a pack of gum I am a criminal by your standards and if I get shot by the cops oh well. There's much to callous a disregard of human life online and it sickens me.

0

XxcOoPeR93xX t1_iu5cbb7 wrote

2nd amendment or not, these guys would still be doing the same thing

Most of these guys are prohibited posessors and literally do not have 2A rights.

12

nwdogr t1_iu5gp7j wrote

The 2A enables the proliferation of guns in America which directly supplies the illegal gun market. That's why funerals getting shot up on a regular basis is a uniquely American problem.

−1

XxcOoPeR93xX t1_iu5q7n3 wrote

Pretty sure funerals getting shot up is because we glorify gang violence, not because there's too many guns. I promise you this incident was gang related. The dude the funeral was being held for was killed in a shooting 2 weeks ago. The people literaly did a driveby this is gang related activity through and through. More gun restrictions will not stop this activity. These guys are already criminals. And criminals don't really tend to follow laws, hence being called "criminals".

3

nwdogr t1_iu5rlqy wrote

Do you think it's easier for a gang in the USA to arm their members with guns or a gang in Australia/Ireland/Germany/Spain/Scotland/Japan/etc to arm their members with guns?

1

XxcOoPeR93xX t1_iu5vuow wrote

I think that's a good question and we could genuinely have a constructive conversation about it if we act as rational adults.

>Do you think it's easier for a gang in the USA to arm their members with guns or a gang in Australia/Ireland/Germany/Spain/Scotland/Japan/etc to arm their members with guns?

I'm curious why you compare against majority European non-violent cultures with much lower gang presence. Japan has the Yakuza which would be the most significant all your list but every country you listed doesn't have what is considered a "gang problem". Why do you not compare to Mexico/Africa/Middle East/Brazil/Venezuela/Honduras/El Salvador, etc? Why does nobody talk about our closest neighbor, Mexico? Why don't we talk about how restrictive Mexican gun laws are (it takes months of paperwork, you can only have them on your property, you cannot carry one, etc)? Surely for a country with such restrictions in place, they should have virtually no crime, right?

Unfortunately that is not the case. While the majority of Mexican citizens are not killing each other in mass, the cartels are a significant cause for that violent crime rate. Interestingly enough, Mexico has a 1.6x higher firearms related death rate per capita that the US does (17.35 to 10.95 per 100k respectively). If firearm restrictions actually did anything about crime, surely this would not be the case.

Unfortunately, more firearm restrictions is not the closest correlation to crime. Crime rate follows gang related activity. That pattern is real and true across the world, regardless of firearms laws.

5

nwdogr t1_iu6110o wrote

Let me ask it another way. If you took a violent American gang, took away its guns, and placed it in any of the countries I mentioned, do you think they would be able to arm themselves as easily as they did in America?

2

ZakalwesChair t1_iu5g1iu wrote

Without the second amendment there wouldn’t be hundreds of millions of guns in the United States. Without hundreds of millions of guns, these people would be unlikely to have access to them.

−4

XxcOoPeR93xX t1_iu5o5ra wrote

Yea and even though machine guns are illegal, that means it should be sooooo hard to get a glock switch..............

Guns will always be smuggled in, my friend. Unless they're being smuggled to you, they're being smuggled to someone without your best interest in mind. We have the means to legally fight fire with fire. "Equality of opportunity" some would call it.

Before I continue, are you even an American?

−3

ricky_baker t1_iu5r6oh wrote

It’s completely irrelevant whether they are American or not.

3

[deleted] t1_iu60n34 wrote

[removed]

0

ricky_baker t1_iu61fge wrote

You don’t need to have rights in a foreign country to have an opinion of their society. Especially so if you live in one where daily mass shootings don’t happen.

1

XxcOoPeR93xX t1_iu5rxdl wrote

Until you go to a gun store, do a 4473, and walk out with a gun, you are not aware of how the process even works. Also until you understand American city culture, kids with glocks at elementary school graduation, etc. So yes it matters if you're an American.

That's like me walking into a nuclear plant and telling the Director of Operations that he's doing something wrong. Who cares if I'm aware of the process, my opinion is just as valid, right?

−1

ricky_baker t1_iu5trf1 wrote

Your experience filling out a sheet of paper isn’t necessary for a valid opinion. False equivalency.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-gun-earlier-school-shooting-92204175

It’s a sham process when it can be circumvented so easily anyway.

0

XxcOoPeR93xX t1_iu5x0c0 wrote

Lol I don't think you want to use that as a reference buddy.

Dude failed his background check. This failure should've triggered an investigation by the ATF. It should've triggered an investigation by the FBI. The mother and family was aware of mental illness. The mother had police oversee the transfer of the firearm to another party. Yet he still got his hands on it.

This isn't an example of needing more fun laws this is actually a perfect example of gun laws not working. And restricting guns even more will, again, not work. Criminals will find a way.

When we have no resources for the mentally ill, when we have incompetent federal agencies more concerned with disarming Americans than stopping mass shooters.

I agree that we have a problem. But I don't think it's the one you think it is.

2

ZakalwesChair t1_iu60nn5 wrote

It would be hard to find if the second amendment didn’t exist and Gun manufacturers weren’t able to flood the American market with guns.

2

suzer2017 t1_iu59pgq wrote

So common an occurrence it doesn't even make CNN anymore.

−11

Appropriate_Ad9108 t1_iu5ap61 wrote

Hearing gunshots at night used to scare me. Now I just roll back over and go back to sleep.

5

Dr-P-Ossoff t1_iu5gtoi wrote

I hope you have brick walls, or at least an antique cast iron bathtub.

2

nsfwuseraccnt t1_iu5hn1x wrote

You should move.

1

Appropriate_Ad9108 t1_iu5nni9 wrote

Nah. Most of the time it’s at a distance and usually people fire into the air. Most of the time… Did you know that you will also hear gunshots out in the county? Hunting season can be pretty noisy in the right location. Statistically insignificant chance of getting hit by a stray, and not much I can do about it.

3

nsfwuseraccnt t1_iu67jcz wrote

I used to live in the ghetto years ago when I was just starting out. Hearing gunshots was the last straw for me there. I got my ass in gear and got out of there as fast as I could, which wasn't as fast as I would have liked. They were not mostly shooting into the air. I've lived out in the country before (and hope to move there again) and the gun shots there never bothered me much because I knew they were from hunters or just people target shooting on their property. I'll take that any day over people shooting each other at the end of the block. Good luck and stay safe.

2

suzer2017 t1_iu5as6e wrote

So sorry.

−1

Appropriate_Ad9108 t1_iu5lzr5 wrote

No worries. I’m so used to it that it doesn’t faze me. It’s so common if you live in an urban area.

2