Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TupperwareConspiracy OP t1_j0z906l wrote

Gist (I think?) is he drove from Georiga to Orlando on something of a whim with his gun and got pissed off when he couldn't book a room at a hotel; went to ammunition store - buys ammunition - comes back to resort and starts shooting...goes to another resort starts shooting...leaves / crashes his car / and gets picked up by the cops and confesses to crime

This coulda been about 1000x worse

160

mtarascio t1_j0za0h8 wrote

This is 1000x worse than is possible in the rest of the developed world.

35

Banea-Vaedr t1_j0zghe5 wrote

This guy hasn't heard what happened in Nice

23

Freedom11Fries t1_j101ika wrote

Firearms are literally the leading cause of death for American children right now, eclipsing all other causes.

America saw more children killed in school shootings this fall than Nice has seen in the last fifty years put together.

Comparing these things just reminds us all how much better the rest of the first world has it than we do. Any kids growing up in Nice have a lot better chance at actually growing up than they do in a country where mentally ill people can easily and affordably buy assault rifles and ammunition in near unlimited quantities.

24

xAtlas5 t1_j10fah1 wrote

>Firearms are literally the leading cause of death for American children right now

After decades of it being motor vehicles.

19

kuroimakina t1_j10yjbq wrote

And if it wasn’t cars it would be something else. It doesn’t stop this from being a stupid bad faith argument. Cars are meant to get you from point A to point B, require a permit, then practical training, then a license, plus insurance (in most states).

Guns are literally meant to destroy things. The vast majority are constantly engineered to be more and more efficient at killing. That is the entire point of their existence. Call it “defense” all you want, guns are literally built to kill, and it takes much less effort to get a gun than it takes to get a car.

14

SohndesRheins t1_j12t3mk wrote

It's very easy to buy a car because you do not need to be licensed, insured, or much of anything just to own a car. A blind 14 year old can drive a car around on private land all they want.

1

xAtlas5 t1_j116dpf wrote

Hardly a bad faith argument. If you care about banning so-called 'assault weapons' because of the number of children who die, then it tracks that you should also feel similarly about cars. Judging from your response, that's very clearly not the case. The means shouldn't matter if your goal is to reduce the number of children killed per year.

The entire point of a motor vehicle is to get from point A to point B. That's it. Whether it's driving down a road or plowing through a crowd, it's fulfilling its purpose. Both guns and cars require a human operator to use or misuse.

−6

kuroimakina t1_j11anka wrote

Did Tucker Carlson make this argument recently, because suddenly I’m hearing it nonstop from every frothing state the mouth gun nut.

But sure if you want to compare completely unrelated things, mosquitos kill a lot more people than both so let’s ban them right? And before you say “THATS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING” well so are guns and cars.

Get back to me when a gun requires taking an exam, getting a permit, then shooting only with a licensed instructor or firearm owner, then taking a practical test, then carrying liability insurance, with a license that can be revoked if you prove not responsible enough to handle it.

And don’t go pulling a “shall not be infringed.” Because the very first part of that amendment is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

1

xAtlas5 t1_j11d100 wrote

I wouldn't know, I don't watch Fox or Tucker. I mean I'm not "frothing state" but you believe whatever you want to lol.

> mosquitos kill a lot more people than both so let’s ban them right?

Fuckin A, how can I help? Mosquitos not only are fucking annoying they kill ~700k people worldwide.

> Get back to me when a gun requires taking an exam, getting a permit, then shooting only with a licensed instructor or firearm owner, then taking a practical test, then carrying liability insurance, with a license that can be revoked if you prove not responsible enough to handle it.

Then I guess I'll never be getting back to you as you can't and shouldn't one to pass a test in order to exercise their rights. That is a very, very dangerous precedent. You remember Texas' abortion ban, and the way they effectively skirted a constitutionally protected right? That opened up a whole-ass can of worms that people can now use to attack other rights.

> “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

Well regulated meaning functioning, in working order.

0

Isord t1_j10g8qu wrote

I think you'll find personal motor vehicles are way less common in the rest of the developed world as well.

7

keskeskes1066 t1_j11mr8t wrote

Maybe Elon can build an EG (Electic Gun) factory in one of those places, like a cultural ambassador and such.

1

xAtlas5 t1_j10hcd1 wrote

Cool. The context of that particular snippet though is America.

−9

Isord t1_j10io0d wrote

The original post was comparing America to the rest of the developed world where car accidents are also much lower than America because America is a shithole.

8

celtic1888 t1_j114znk wrote

That’s worse you know…

You do understand that this is worse ?

7

xAtlas5 t1_j119f2y wrote

While it's bad, it isn't necessarily worse. I wonder if something happened in 2020-2021 which would result in fewer people driving places...

People use it as a convenient argument against firearm ownership and don't actually think about what the data means.

−6

celtic1888 t1_j11b1gh wrote

Firearms have no utility aside from hunting or warfare. Anything not used for that is strictly a hobby

Cars on the other hand have a ton of utility

Also there are many more cars being used per minute than guns so they will obviously have a higher rate of fatalities

We also license, register and have compulsory insurance on motor vehicles. Those motor vehicles are also taken away from individuals who are not using them in the prescribed manner

2

xAtlas5 t1_j11e6fn wrote

> Firearms have no utility aside from hunting or warfare

Self defense is very much a valid reason. During the civil rights era firearms were used to defend against racist groups/lynch mobs by black communities. Fun fact: in some cases the police themselves even participated in the lynch mobs.

> Also there are many more cars being used per minute than guns so they will obviously have a higher rate of fatalities

And because of that, for literal decades motor vehicles have been the leading cause of death in children.

> Those motor vehicles are also taken away from individuals who are not using them in the prescribed manner

Vehicle ownership isn't a protected right, and one is only required to get insurance and licensing if operating on public roads. Registration, licensing, insurance, none of those things prevent people from misusing their cars to intentionally or otherwise harm others.

1

Divallo t1_j12lzjh wrote

Self defense have you heard of it?

Do you expect people to just call the police so america's notoriously violent and undertrained cops can use their firearms instead?

That is if they even show up. Fun fact they have zero legal obligation to protect or save anybody.

Which role do police fill in your opinion hunting, warfare, or hobbyist?

So you want to just pacify everyone in a society where healthcare costs a fortune and the police don't give a shit?

Or better yet just make citizens jump through countless financial hoops so that only rich people can have firearms because the poor just weren't oppressed enough as it is.

License (fee). Registration (fee). Insurance (huge expense)

Yeah I feel safe already...

−1

lapideous t1_j13yjd4 wrote

It sounds like you’re trying to cover several gaping wounds with a single bandaid

−1

Divallo t1_j1498dt wrote

I'm stating how things already are. If people want a disarmed society they need to lay down groundwork for society to function that way and stop pretending it will be totally just like Europe overnight.

The order in which you handle America's gaping wounds matters because citizens need a real guarantee of their safety first before disarmament.

2

One-Guilty-Finger t1_j1186yt wrote

We need more cars so the good guys with cars can prevent car crashes.

−3

xAtlas5 t1_j118a7v wrote

Cool beans. Never have I ever asserted anything of that nature, for cars or otherwise.

3

SohndesRheins t1_j12szad wrote

That is only true if you count 18b and 19 year old adults as children.

4

[deleted] t1_j142ln2 wrote

[deleted]

−1

SohndesRheins t1_j148ykf wrote

The stats in that article are nuts when it breaks it down by ethnicity and sex, especially when you compare black males to Hispanic or white females. Being a young black male child in the US is like being a refugee in Yemen, can't imagine what those neighborhoods look like.

1

Freedom11Fries t1_j15u1ii wrote

>can't imagine what those neighborhoods look like.

They look like your neighborhood. Or my neighborhood. There's no "look" for gun violence or people shooting kids in America. It's as close as Uvalde or Parkland, or the Mall, the movie theater, your church, your synagogue, your women's health clinic, or your grocery store.

People naturally want to look for patterns to make themselves feel better, to say "well it can't happen to me, because I live in a "safe" place." But in the US, random shootings, domestic violence, and mass shootings happen everywhere. We've literally got more guns than people.

1

SohndesRheins t1_j16meux wrote

No, these things do not happen everywhere, it's actually rather easy to see exactly where they happen. All those Chicago shootings only happen in certain areas. Saint Louis' shootings happen in very specific areas too.

1

[deleted] t1_j16o8gy wrote

[deleted]

2

SohndesRheins t1_j16xoaq wrote

Not sure why you are mentioning Boulder and Colorado Springs. Boulder doesn't have a high violent crime rate, but its property crime rate is 50% higher than thebrest of the country and it's not surprising that violent crime will happen there. Colorado Springs has a high property crime rate, but it also has a very high violent crime rate, so no shit you have a lot of shootings there. Colorado Springs has a violent crime rate 50% higher than the rest of the country combined, so how you count that as being evidence that shootings happen everywhere is beyond me. No, shootings don't happen everywhere, they happen in places with lots of property crime and violent crime, and Colorado Springs has both of those.

As far as Chicago, go look at a map of the shootings and see what areas they happen in. Those shootings don't happen in the areas with low crime rates.

I live in the country near a small town of 12,000 where the only crime issues are drugs and bad checks. A week ago there was a homicide here that was ruled as a self-defense shooting, and it was huge news because no homicide had happened in the county in a couple years. Shootings are not a problem here because we don't have many people, don't have many breaking and entering or robbery crimes, and we don't have many assaults either. No mass shooting has ever happened in my county as far back as anyone has kept data. Again, shootings do not happen everywhere, they happen in highly populated areas that also have high crime rates. You can claim that Boulder and Colorado Springs are quiet, rich cities all you want but the stats say that lots of crime happens there.

1

Swagaru t1_j10nn6l wrote

Source for that claim?

1

IrishRage42 t1_j11hsrp wrote

If it's the source I saw I think it counted "children" to age 21 or 25. So if you count a child as someone up to 21 then yes firearms are the leading cause of death. I personally think that's disingenuous. A majority of that number are probably 16-21 year olds in gangs who are killed and not school shootings as a lot of people want to make it sound when they use that statistic.

10

EsotericAbstractIdea t1_j13yyx8 wrote

That’s exactly what it is. They are lying about the definition of children for emotional manipulation. The number one killer of teens and young adults is suicide and gang violence. They lumped all 4 of these together so that they could say the number one killer of kids is guns. So evil.

1

ArkyBeagle t1_j10hkij wrote

That's mostly because cars are safer now.

−3

Freedom11Fries t1_j10iy53 wrote

Actually, its mostly because shooting deaths of American children have nearly doubled over the last 25 years.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/14/magazine/gun-violence-children-data-statistics.html

17

ArkyBeagle t1_j10k4sx wrote

That too. But the traffic death ratio has simply declined a bit faster and I (arbitrarily) picked the leading statistic. Peak traffic deaths US was 25.51 ( edit: per 100,000 ) in 1973 vs 2013's 10.40. 2.5ish is just a tad over <2.0 .

Traffic deaths are rising again as well :(

2

NoblePotatoe t1_j10pfj3 wrote

Compare 2000 to 2022, that will be a more fair comparison. The gains in road safety were alot less after 2000, most of the low hanging fruit was plucked in the 70s and 80s.

4

ArkyBeagle t1_j10srss wrote

Oh, absolutely. I'm using the smallest number as a "we can do at least this well." A baseline.

I have to wonder if some of the increase in both gun deaths and traffic deaths has a common cause.

2

Banea-Vaedr t1_j101t0z wrote

That doesn't change what kind of devastation is possible with a firearm vs, say, a truck.

And most kids dying to firearms shoot themselves or their siblings on accident. Mass shootings generally don't target them (unless they're gang-affiliated)

−16

[deleted] t1_j104mm2 wrote

[deleted]

5

Banea-Vaedr t1_j1050q9 wrote

>At least a truck can carry some groceries.

And a rifle can make some. Venison is delicious jf it's been tenderized on a car hood.

>We are really really familiar with how deadly these weapons are, and what effective mass-killing tools they were designed to be.

The rifling on an AR-15 isn't anywhere near the gold standard.

−13

SsurebreC t1_j100yto wrote

Yes but for the US that's just a Tuesday. If you mean Nice, France shooting then are you referring to the 2016 [incident]? Do you know how many shootings of the same caliber (pun intended) have happened in the US in Florida alone and just this year?

Here's school shootings alone.

10

Banea-Vaedr t1_j101ca2 wrote

I'm referring to the truck

11

LordFluffy t1_j102ni3 wrote

The truck attack that killed over 80 people, iirc. There were more deaths and injuries than the Vegas shooting.

13

Morgrid t1_j0zgmu9 wrote

Or the guy in Canada yesterday.

9

Talmaska t1_j107gnl wrote

Getting a hand-gun in Canada is very difficult. My uncle got one in the '80's. The RCMP came to his house, checked out his bookshelf's, to see what he reads. Checked out his VHS tapes. Interviewed his neighbors and employer. When he got the licence he was only allowed to take it to the gun club and back home. That's it.

4

Leering t1_j10wj7y wrote

I for one love having the government entering my home and judging what I read and watch. Just hope you don't get a racist or homophobic cop. Ahhh freedom

3

EsotericAbstractIdea t1_j13zptj wrote

Getting one legally is difficult. It’s easy to get a gun illegally anywhere in the world with an internet connection now, if you have like $500 USD total in disposable income. Ammo may be trickier in some places.

1

EsotericAbstractIdea t1_j14012y wrote

I can’t wait for global warming to fuck shit up more just to see how civilized your pompous asses are when you’re starving.

2

mtarascio t1_j14h9yo wrote

Are you implying our pompous asses will be crying because we won't have guns to steal or defend food reserves?

I'm confused.

1

EsotericAbstractIdea t1_j14iblk wrote

I'd like to believe in humanity's ability to remain civil in a situation of extreme scarcity, but history has already spoken. Yes, you're going to have to defend against thieves in hand to hand combat. As the aggressor, they will choose the time and place. It will begin with them having the upper hand.

2

mtarascio t1_j14iq98 wrote

Gun control proponents are about control, not removal.

A situation like you said would not happen overnight and in times of end times, I would see a legitimate need. Right now there is not one and if you go for gun control such as what is in the rest of the developed world. You can still own one if you want, you just need to go through extra steps.

I'm a big fan of Australia's laws and have been hunting in Australia for pest wildlife just fine.

0

EsotericAbstractIdea t1_j14jsxb wrote

When I hear someone say they don't want to take them, just make it a little more organized/civil/modern whatever, I always remember Canada, Australia, England. All of them started with registration, then piece by piece they banned and confiscated everything, one by one. They just recently ran an article demonizing and doxxing every owner of a bolt action hunting rifle in a state in Australia. Even if most gun grabbers only want a little gun control, there's always someone tomorrow who will want more. We've already lost too much, therefore, shall not be infringed.

4

mtarascio t1_j14kj0z wrote

> then piece by piece they banned and confiscated everything, one by one

I lived Australia mate.

They had a single buyback of semi-autos. Nothing else really happened since then. There is no piece by piece.

You can own all the hunting weapons you desire.

Edit:

>They just recently ran an article demonizing and doxxing every owner of a bolt action hunting rifle in a state in Australia.

Wow, an article. As much credence as your post dude.

0

EsotericAbstractIdea t1_j14lolt wrote

You must have left right after 1996 because there have been 3 other gun control bills passed and 28 more gun confiscations since port Arthur.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_of_Australia

4

mtarascio t1_j14m59c wrote

There was one more wholesale change in Hangguns in 2002 but the laws pretty much stayed stable with only minor changes to facilitate the initial intent.

Amnesties are not buybacks, just opportunities to comply with laws on the books.

0

EsotericAbstractIdea t1_j14mfnv wrote

I didn't call it a buyback, because that is a misnomer. I called it a confiscation, which is what it is. The government didn't own the gun in the first place, so they can't buy it back. It's mandatory so it isn't a sale. It's a confiscation with a distraction.

3

EsotericAbstractIdea t1_j14n827 wrote

Also the time they did this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Ausguns/comments/tjqabt/west_australian_mass_doxing_legal_gun_owners_in/

1

mtarascio t1_j14nfpe wrote

They is a tabloid calling for laws.

I kind find 50 trillion examples in American media.

1

EsotericAbstractIdea t1_j14nmf8 wrote

con·fis·cate

/ˈkänfəˌskāt/

verb

take or seize (someone's property) with authority.

"the guards confiscated his camera"

Similar:

impound

seize

commandeer

requisition

appropriate

expropriate

take possession of

sequester

sequestrate

take away

take over

take

annex

distrain

attach

disseize

poind

Opposite:

return

take (a possession, especially land) as a penalty and give it to the public treasury.

"this land was confiscated after the Second World War"

1

mtarascio t1_j14onz8 wrote

Amnesty requires someone to hand something in on their own volition.

1

EsotericAbstractIdea t1_j14otus wrote

Threatening arrest if they find it otherwise is under duress. They have authority, it's still confiscation.

2

mtarascio t1_j14p0o7 wrote

You don't call drug laws confiscation.

Give it a rest.

1

EsotericAbstractIdea t1_j14p628 wrote

Lol they most definitely confiscate your drugs when they arrest you.

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/confiscate

Click example sentences

2

mtarascio t1_j14phz2 wrote

Which they do the same in the US when they find an illegal gun.

You don't say the US confiscates guns, you're trying to avoid that.

Confiscation would be cold knocking doors and conducting searches and seizing. None of that happened.

1

EsotericAbstractIdea t1_j14pwhv wrote

That's exactly what I'm saying. Sure, here it's usually required to commit some other real crime for them to confiscate your guns. But it clearly definitely happens. I must have edited my previous post after you clicked it. Please check it.

2

i81u812 t1_j0zfr4u wrote

You are out of your mind. Not only in the basics of the comment, but we easily get 10k x worse elsewhere. We could easily do it here.

−16

mtarascio t1_j0zgfxq wrote

It's the ability to just pickup Ammunition on a whim.

2

LevelStudent t1_j0znu3c wrote

He could have decided to make it worse, yes. Just lucky he didn't do more, really.

Somehow I don't think hoping they get bored and stop shooting is going to work in every situation.

28

MooKids t1_j0zw0ic wrote

Really weird that he only brought the rifle and didn't have ammo for it already.

25

keskeskes1066 t1_j11miy3 wrote

Somebody failed Logistics at their small private school.

4