Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_j4c7rqa wrote

Women and children being shot from a car in the UK? America should sue for cultural appropriation.

158

d311h0p t1_j4dihpg wrote

People like you make me seriously doubt humanity's ability to ever get it's shit together

−17

00notmyrealname00 t1_j4dq3d6 wrote

Get over yourself. Humor is a completely normal and acceptable way to process tragedy. Displacing your feelings about something onto others is not.

13

d311h0p t1_j4dqbtl wrote

What was supposed to be funny about your joke?

−29

minitrr t1_j4dtlso wrote

It was funny because it was a criticism of America’s hyper obsession with guns to the point it’s a part of our National identity and culture.

They used irony by highlighting that a headline you constantly see in the US is coming up for the UK. And they got bonus points by weaving in another classic American cultural trope of being paranoid about cultural appropriation.

That’s why it was funny, not because people got injured.

11

Stibley_Kleeblunch t1_j4dv2xp wrote

It comments on our love for frivolous lawsuits as well. Very clever, in my opinion.

14

d311h0p t1_j4dwukb wrote

Yes it's a completely accurate criticism. Using someone's injury as the fuel for it, and connecting something completely unrelated. We must have very different senses of humor, and I respect that people with yours found it funny.

−20

Vansittart t1_j4dpawg wrote

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this? They only made a joke about the US.

3

d311h0p t1_j4e1z1k wrote

I don't find using people who got shot as fuel for humor to be funny

6

[deleted] t1_j4eb3ju wrote

[removed]

−4

d311h0p t1_j4gfj66 wrote

I'm glad you could find some joy out of it. Nothing has changed for me

3

[deleted] t1_j4e6q9w wrote

[removed]

−8

[deleted] t1_j4ebcve wrote

Would you think it's funny if you got shot?

6

d311h0p t1_j4gfo9c wrote

Or consider this, I'll do what I want.

2

CumsOnPizza t1_j4h2p2r wrote

but you're telling others what to do which is exactly your response to me, lmao. Karens... sigh

−2

d311h0p t1_j4h6qvb wrote

I never not once told someone else what to do here.

1

CumsOnPizza t1_j4hgjv6 wrote

you complained that this humour not to be funny, implying you don't think it should have been posted. get over it

0

d311h0p t1_j4hhpz9 wrote

I didn't imply that at all. People are fully free to say what they want in a public forum, and the public is allowed to voice their opinions.

0

astanton1862 t1_j4fmo7s wrote

The thing that confuses me is that guns aren't easy to get in the UK, so why would you use one for a drive by on a bunch of women? I would think that if I went to the trouble of getting a gun in London, I would be a bit more judicious on how I do it.

11

IV4K t1_j4r94ei wrote

Shotguns are legal and It was a Colombian cartel revenge attack.

2

King_Merlin t1_j4ermo1 wrote

I wonder if they will still be religious after this.

−15

[deleted] t1_j4dsjed wrote

[deleted]

−35

Ksh_667 t1_j4gzk9t wrote

I’m glad they’re not dead. Hopefully they will recover. But I’d be struggling to feel positive about this if I was one of the victims.

6

[deleted] t1_j4h2f3o wrote

[deleted]

−3

Ksh_667 t1_j4hh9zb wrote

I think the best we can say is no-ones dead yet. Sounds like there may be a death yet. Hope not.

1

Sunflower_After_Dark t1_j4cjoy4 wrote

I remember when civilian shootings in England were unheard of. Car bombs, different story. Please don’t become like America with gun nuts everywhere.

−48

[deleted] t1_j4ckq67 wrote

[removed]

67

Sunflower_After_Dark t1_j4cnf2d wrote

There’s a lot less of them than the senseless shootings in America.

−30

delcodick t1_j4ebhyh wrote

That would make you over 700 years old so I am confident in my assessment that your claim is in fact bullshit

7

[deleted] t1_j4cd6vk wrote

[removed]

−49

HarEmiya t1_j4cfjxi wrote

We had a mass shooting in 1987 and in 2014. 7 and 4 people were killed, respectively.

Edit: we also had 2 terrorist bombings in 2011 and 2016, as well as a mass knife stabbing in 2009. Not sure if that counts.

27

lellololes t1_j4cja1b wrote

Europe as a whole has a tiny fraction of the number that occur in the US. It wouldn't shock me if we had 10x as many, but the number there is not zero.

22

[deleted] t1_j4cjnx9 wrote

[removed]

−41

lellololes t1_j4dnnao wrote

Widespread mass shootings are not a significant problem in the EU. They are in the US.

20

CumsOnPizza t1_j4e748r wrote

>That’s all I’m getting at.

well you're wrong, get over it.

10

[deleted] t1_j4e9dxu wrote

[removed]

−15

snapper1971 t1_j4fi561 wrote

Nothing to the scale of America. You can group all the mass shootings across Europe over a decade and you still wouldn't be close to the level of bloodshed in America. Most weekends in the US are marked with multiple mass shootings.

3

BeenJamminMon t1_j4qaqyy wrote

America had 672 people die in 2022 from "mass shootings". 3,100,000 people died in the US in 2022. That's a .021% death rate from "mass shootings". Most of those deaths occurred in street level gang and drug violence, typically the casualties are made up of rival criminal enterprises.

Despite what the news leads you to believe, America is not some violent hell hole with high noon gunfights between crazed yahoos and innocent children. If you stay away from gang violence, you won't get shot.

1

GrampsLFG t1_j4d3n6q wrote

Please tell me this isn’t a serious question. If it is, put down all computing devices and go travel outside the US. Your perspective needs an update.

22

[deleted] t1_j4d6yxk wrote

[removed]

−14

HarEmiya t1_j4dmtvq wrote

I think the main difference lies in quantity. Mass shootings tend to be rare. But in the US, they averaged nearly 2 per day in the past few years. That's an enormous number.

On top of that, most countries seem to want to do something about reducing such events. In the US there is an entire major political party bought and paid for by a lobby group that encourages such shootings. Looking in from the outside, it seems pretty insane.

16

Morgrid t1_j4dxk4v wrote

>But in the US, they averaged nearly 2 per day in the past few years.

Going by the Gun Violence Archive definition, which throws a very wide net compared to just about every other definition.

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

−5

HarEmiya t1_j4e0vy8 wrote

4 or more people shot seems perfectly fitting as a definition for a mass shooting.

Regardless of total number, the international study -using same criteria- still points to the US having a third of the world's mass shootings. While only having 4.25% of the world population.

9

known-to-blow-fuses t1_j4gb2z4 wrote

Yea ok but the type of "mass shooting" that mostly contributes to that 2 per day is not what anyone thinks of when you say "mass shooting". It's not what most people are afraid of if they fear a "mass shooting".

And then everything they do here with legislation ignores the vast majority of the actual problem. Illinois just banned "assault weapons" at least temporarily (will be struck down in courts), completely ignoring that the guns they classified as assault weapons are used in a tiny percentage of gun crime in Illinois.

If people actually cared about gun violence in the US, they would target the weapons used in the vast majority of gun crime. Or, and maybe this is a crazy idea, they should try to figure out why people are doing this now and not in the past and fix those things. These "assault weapons" have been available in the US for many many decades. They did not magically turn people into monsters recently, so what did?

−1

HarEmiya t1_j4ghxsc wrote

>Yea ok but the type of "mass shooting" that mostly contributes to that 2 per day is not what anyone thinks of when you say "mass shooting". It's not what most people are afraid of if they fear a "mass shooting".

How so? If 4 people were shot near me, I'd definitely think of the term "mass shooting".

>And then everything they do here with legislation ignores the vast majority of the actual problem. Illinois just banned "assault weapons" at least temporarily (will be struck down in courts), completely ignoring that the guns they classified as assault weapons are used in a tiny percentage of gun crime in Illinois.

>If people actually cared about gun violence in the US, they would target the weapons used in the vast majority of gun crime. Or, and maybe this is a crazy idea, they should try to figure out why people are doing this now and not in the past and fix those things. These "assault weapons" have been available in the US for many many decades. They did not magically turn people into monsters recently, so what did?

Precisely. Many politicians simply don't want to stop it.

−2

known-to-blow-fuses t1_j4ilhhl wrote

I don't believe that banning certain styles of guns is going to stop anything, nor that banning all guns is fair or right.

The politicians may "want" to stop it, but they can't. There's no little rule they can write into law that would stop it, so they push laws that they can convince their constituents will help by appealing to emotion. Lots of phrases like "weapons of war", "destructive devices", "assault weapons", "killing machines", etc. and they reference children being shot in schools as the "mass shooting" pandemic we have when, as we've discussed, the mass shooting pandemic we live in is really more of an issue of gangs in low income communities. There is no simple solution to our violence problems. The best I can come up with is to raise standard of living for the poor so that they're less desperate. Politicians definitely don't want that. Kind of like how your employer will pay you just enough so that you won't quit, politicians will do just enough to get reelected. No more.

2

HarEmiya t1_j4kkahd wrote

>I don't believe that banning certain styles of guns is going to stop anything, nor that banning all guns is fair or right.

It will stop something, but not everything. True, it isn't fair or right, that's why I'm against it. Gun control legislation however would be a huge improvement. Things like universal bgc and closing existing loopholes is sensible, but even those are rarely voted for because weapon manufacturers would lose a percentage. And they own quite a few politicians.

Just because something can't be 100% fixed right now doesn't mean it can't be improved, even if in steps. Perfect is the enemy of good.

0

howardslowcum t1_j4cfga0 wrote

Nope. Nations with active civil conflicts will report anytime a school or civilian target is attacked and BBC/DW/Aljazera will always and CNN usually will be reporting on it. This is exclusively an American problem.

16

[deleted] t1_j4cg7ns wrote

[removed]

−17

DeliciousWestern t1_j4cqp6h wrote

How often do you see this headline in another developed first world nation (coming from a US perspective)?

20

howardslowcum t1_j4cqu3j wrote

OMG im such a jaded moron I read it as 'Houston.' That said this does prove my point about shooting being reported when they occur. Not a competition but the US has had 25 mass shootings (4+victims) this year so my knee jerk reaction is based in prior experience.

6

ButtMilkyCereal t1_j4deuqm wrote

Why is your reaction to a shooting in another country to immediately gear up to push your progun rhetoric?

15

NotABot1235 t1_j4jqgb0 wrote

Mass shooting in Canada last month kills 6.

Thailand school shooting leaves 35 dead in October.

Australian mass shooting leaves 6 dead.

These are just the ones off the top of my head in the last three months. The lie that these things only happen in America is deliberate misinformation.

9

gustopherus t1_j4qb5xs wrote

You're correct, they don't only happen here in America... BUT, we sure do have a hell of a lot more of them and that point can't even be argued at all.

2

[deleted] t1_j4hu3b9 wrote

Lots of downvotes for this guy. I don’t see an agenda. He asked a simple question about the reporting of statistics. Hope these people are alright.

3