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

howardslowcum t1_j4cfga0 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,361,688)

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

HarEmiya t1_j4cfjxi wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,361,688)

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

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

howardslowcum t1_j4cqu3j wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,361,825)

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

HarEmiya t1_j4dmtvq wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,363,096)

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

minitrr t1_j4dtlso wrote

Replying to d311h0p (#1,364,001)

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

d311h0p t1_j4dwukb wrote

Replying to minitrr (#1,364,137)

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

HarEmiya t1_j4e0vy8 wrote

Replying to Morgrid (#1,364,324)

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

King_Merlin t1_j4ermo1 wrote

I wonder if they will still be religious after this.

−15

snapper1971 t1_j4fi561 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,364,804)

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

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

known-to-blow-fuses t1_j4gb2z4 wrote

Replying to HarEmiya (#1,364,464)

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

Replying to known-to-blow-fuses (#1,367,835)

>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

Replying to HarEmiya (#1,368,265)

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

Replying to known-to-blow-fuses (#1,371,866)

>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

BeenJamminMon t1_j4qaqyy wrote

Replying to snapper1971 (#1,366,577)

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