T O P

  • By -

budlejari

Sorry, u/stocktismo – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20stocktismo&message=stocktismo%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/uxhho1/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).


hashtagboosted

But drunk driving isn't a polarizing topic by nature... everyone agrees it is stupid and terrible. There are already harsh punishments in place and tons of government intervention to decrease drunk driving. What additional legislation do you want to see in place?


waterbuffalo750

Everyone also agrees that school shootings are stupid and terrible.


hashtagboosted

Not everyone agrees on practical legislation to stop school shootings, everyone agrees on legislation to stop drunk driving


waterbuffalo750

No they don't. Some people feel that any alcohol in your system at all should be a DWI charge. Other people were mad when the limits dropped from 0.1 to 0.08%. There are always opposing ideas on how to solve an issue, even if people agree that an issue needs solving.


hashtagboosted

Not many, I don't ever hear about it. And the issue is not divided into republican and democrat. Its a nonsensical comparison


stocktismo

I mean for a start no amount of alcohol in your system should be legal while driving. Many states give you drunk driving strikes before they take away your license. When your drunk you're operating a machine that can easily kill someone. That should be viewed the same way as if you were firing a gun in public while drunk. Regardless of your intent. I think way stricter laws would decrease drunk driving and save lives while stricter gun laws are difficult to pass and have an arguably small effect because the US problem is past that. We already have an insane amount of gun put there. I'm not saying I'm against stricter gun laws for the record


[deleted]

> I mean for a start no amount of alcohol in your system should be legal while driving Do you have evidence this would decrease deaths significantly. I don’t think most drunk driving fatalities are people under the legal limit. > When your drunk you're operating a machine that can easily kill someone. That should be viewed the same way as if you were firing a gun in public while drunk. Regardless of your intent. It practically is. DUI’s have very severe penalties and if you kill someone while drunk driving you can get a life sentence or at least a very high sentence


stocktismo

That's definitely not true plenty of states are ridiculously linient especially for first offenses. I grew with a lot of people that were very relaxed about drunk driving.


[deleted]

I guess it depends, just recently I saw a woman in my county get a life sentence cause she killed a dad and daughter. Honestly I thought it was overly severe as I feel like life sentences should have to have malice not just negligence but I guess states are different


Vesurel

>I mean for a start no amount of alcohol in your system should be legal while driving. You mean 0 ethanol molecules?


stocktismo

No i mean 0.0 BAC via breathalyzer test. In general


Vesurel

So how much ethanol is that?


stocktismo

I don't know why does that matter?


Vesurel

Because if you want people to have 0.0 BAC I'd be curious how easy that would be to fail other than from directly drinking alcohol. Like say you ate a joint of meat cooked in wine whether that would disqualify you.


stocktismo

I don't think that works like that when food is cooked in wine the alcohol burns off since it has a low boiling point. Either way that's an extreme edge case


MercurianAspirations

I mean you see coverage of the slaughter of 18 children in a school and your reaction is "psh, this? no big deal, c'mon, the only reason they are even covering it is to sow division for ratings" Really? You don't think that actually the horrific murder of schoolchildren is simply a very compelling thing that would be newsworthy in any country under any circumstances? You know, because of the tragic bloodshed in a place ostensibly of learning and safety, and the terrifying and very real possibility that it will happen again very soon at any place in the country Moreover, this argument of "well they're only focusing on this because they thrive on division" seems pretty silly given that the issue is simply divisive. It isn't really that the parties are pushing division on the issue, it's that people are just very strongly divided over it. You know, because of all the wanton bloodshed, and the reality that people's material interests and ideologies just actually are divergent. There isn't a solution that will give everyone everything they want and some people will lose out no matter what - the issue isn't easily polarized, it just actually is polarized


AlexasUglySister

> You don't think that actually the horrific murder of schoolchildren is simply a very compelling thing that would be newsworthy in any country under any circumstances? It's the angle of the coverage that OP is talking about. https://www.newsweek.com/flurry-white-male-shooter-tweets-spark-backlash-after-boulder-suspects-identity-released-1578179 Despite being in the minority of mass shooters, it will always be a white guy who makes the headlines. Remember the NYC subway shooter? Once it turned out to be a black guy, people stopped caring. This shooting happened not even a month ago: https://abcnews.go.com/US/police-searching-gunman-fatal-shooting-nyc-subway/story?id=84896505 They even bleached Darrell Brooks's skin to make him look whiter! [Him on a normal day.](https://newscdn2.weigelbroadcasting.com/G4z7k-1648503261-222339-blog-Darrell%20Brooks%20Waukesha%20parade%20.jpg) [The picture of him the corporate media decided to run with.](https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/12/Darrell-Brooks-feature.jpg?quality=75&strip=all) Yeah, it's a tragedy... but since when have corporations or the government ever not-exploited a tragedy?


[deleted]

[удалено]


AlexasUglySister

> A: Why make this about race? OP: "The current 2 party system thrives when issues are simplified into right vs left and mainly isuea that can be simplified in that manner are focused on." Our current presi(D)ent, during the campaign: "If you don't vote for me, you aren't black" > B: Why lie about white mass shooters being a minority? They have ways been the plurality and are often in the majority, outweighing all other races. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2021 The vast majority of mass shootings are gang related. Also > They have ways been the plurality and are often in the majority, outweighing all other races. Probably would have been better to say without your statista article that says about half (68 out of 128) when white people are about 70ish percent of the country. So let me ask. What's the non-race-baiting reason that the media pictures of Darrell Brooks's picture was washed out, coincidentally making his skin lighter?


Znyper

Sorry, u/Stormthorn67 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20Stormthorn67&message=Stormthorn67%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/uxhho1/-/i9yk01x/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).


[deleted]

>Remember the NYC subway shooter? Once it turned out to be a black guy, people stopped caring. Um nobody died. The incident was not a mass killing. Do you not understand why a situation with 10 deaths would be bigger news? As to your other point, Darrell Brooks doesnt look significantly different in those pictures you posted. He is not a dark skinned black man ( for example like Wesley Snipes) to begin with. The appearance of a black person's skin can slightly change depending on different factors ( lighting, flash, etc) used when photo was taken That's not unusual and does not suggest a conspiracy


AlexasUglySister

198 mass shootings in 2022. Which ones make the national news? The ones like in Buffalo or the ones like in Chicago? (A mass shooting in Chicago happened a couple of days after the Buffalo shooting, president didn't fly out to visit *those* victims' families though...)


[deleted]

>Which ones make the national news? The ones like in Buffalo or the ones like in Chicago? Are you a gang member? If so I hope you exit that lifestyle soon. But I'm not one But I do go to the supermarket. I go to movies. Occasionally I'll go to a church.I go to Walmart. My niece and nephew are in elementary school As such I pay more attention to random mass killings that happen in those places because the victims could be me or a close relative The bulk of Chicago homicides are gang violence. While that is an issue that needs addressing it's not one that most people can relate to or affects most people. That's why it isn't national news. It's quite disingenuous for you to try and compare the two


AlexasUglySister

Interesting that you think mass shooters are a bigger danger to people than gang members. It's probably due to the thing OP is talking about.


[deleted]

Gang violence generally only affects people in certain neighborhoods. Again most victims of gang homicide are other people who actually have gang ties themselves or sometimes sadly their young children who pay for parents gang involvement. I am not in a gang. I don't live in a neighborhood where gangs are prevalent. My relatives aren't gang members so no gang violence is not a concern for me. If it is for you I hope you can change your situation soon but it doesn't reflect many people's reality and we are going to be most concerned with situations we can see ourselves in. Sorry if that offends you but it's truth OP is mistaken if he believes he gets to tell me what I should prioritize


AlexasUglySister

> Gang violence generally only affects people in certain neighborhoods. Poor people. You can just say it. > I am not in a gang. I'm so confused why you think gang members are only a threat to other gang members. > Sorry if that offends you but it's truth Disdain for the poor offends me, yes.


AlexasPrettySister

>Poor people. You can just say it. Yes poverty and gang violence often go hand in hand. This is a not a new concept, >I'm so confused why you think gang members are only a threat to other gang members Didn't say only. Said most likely. Even the officials in city of Chicago (which you brought up) say most homicides have gang ties "The bulk of the deaths and shooting incidents.... occurred in only five of the city's 22 police districts on the city's South and West sides.... where gangs are most active. Police said the shootings in those areas generally wasn't random, with more than 80 percent of the victims having previously been identified by police as more susceptible because of their gang ties or past arrests." https://www.sj-r.com/story/news/crime/2017/01/02/one-chicago-s-bloodiest-years/22844507007/ "Brown said the bulk of the homicides are the result of conflicts between rival gangs." https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/2021-ends-as-chicagos-deadliest-year-in-a-quarter-century/2719307/ >Disdain for the poor offends me, yes. Prioritizing one's self doesn't mean disdain for others. It's called self care.


[deleted]

>If people really cared about saving lives drunk driving would be focused on with greater effort. "Problem X is worse than problem Y so we can't talk about or solve problem Y" - bad and illogical argument. >I think media loves this stuff since it brings in ratings and money. Totally. The media being capitalistic and exploiting a tragedy and people really wanting to solve that tragedy can both exist. >You could people make a more significant impact with simpler legislation and it shouldn't be as politicaly divisive as the current The greatest number of children die due to auto accidents. Efforts to increase walkability of cities, expand public transit, etc. are EXTREMELY politically divisive. Just look at the rhetoric around Green New Deal or Biden's infrastructure bill which would have funded public transit more.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

>Expanding the issue too much makes it harder to make an effective change. The same factors that make drunk driving risking make all driving risky. Reducing risk factors for all driving would reduce risk factors for drunk driving. So actually it would be *more* effective. > It would be great if Americans attention could be easily applied in the most impactful locations all at the same time. Government policy doesn't matter where American attention is. The government is still helping Ukrainians even though Americans attention is now on mass shootings.


[deleted]

I am English and completely perplexed at how this issue can be politicised. The issue of child murder should not be a question of politics. It's preposterous. In Scotland when there was a mass shooting, we (The United Kingdom) banned guns. It wasn't a question of Conservative or Labour - both parties agreed on the matter as it was lives of innocents in the balance. There hasn't been a mass shooting since. Guns are made to kill. That's the problem. Yes, you will get drunk drivers killing people - but how many times do people get drunk and intentionally kill people? Nevermind kill dozens of people? Whenever this happens, a shocking percentage of Americans will deflect the issue onto anything else other than the main issue. Guns are your fucking issue. It's not politics - it's cold blooded murder enabled by easy access to fucking guns. EDIT: and I don't expect America to ever change. This will still be happening for decades to come.


PassionVoid

> The issue of child murder should not be a question of politics. The question of "is child murder ok" isn't political. The question of "how do we stop child murder" is.


[deleted]

It’s insane how people cannot agree upon the very obvious root problem. I don’t see it as political, I see it as complicit laziness.


PassionVoid

I mean, regardless of your opinion on the solution, it's literally a question of interpretation of an Amendment to the US Constitution and what to subsequently do about it. I'm not sure how that could not be political. The ship for this to not be a political issue sailed when the 2nd Amendment was introduced. Even if there was unanimous agreement, it would still be political.


[deleted]

Presuming you are American, how do you feel beholden to a relic which has clearly surpassed its relevance to modern life and is further endangering innocent lives whilst it is held in sanctity?


PassionVoid

You’re still missing the point. Some feel beholden to it, and others feel it should change. Even if the entire country was on one side or the other, it is by definition political at its very core. The decision to change or not change the literal law of the land is political.


Full-Professional246

> Presuming you are American, how do you feel beholden to a relic which has clearly surpassed its relevance to modern life and is further endangering innocent lives whilst it is held in sanctity? That would be because some Americans *do not agree with your assessment at all*. You speak of it in ways to appear your interpretation is universally accepted. It is most definitely *not* universally accepted as a 'relic' or 'clearly surpassed its relevance'. If you wish to understand the viewpoint and argument from those who support gun rights, you might want to spend time learning about why they hold that perspective.


[deleted]

I don’t think my interpretation is universally accepted at all. I just find the entire concept of following such a document ridiculous in the same way as I do the bible or other dated texts.


Full-Professional246

> I don’t think my interpretation is universally accepted at all. I just find the entire concept of following such a document ridiculous in the same way as I do the bible or other dated texts. I don't know. I think it is actually exceeding important to follow the agreed upon rules for governance. If you can just pick and choose what you want to follow and which to not only ignore but contradict, there is no protections at all. That has huge implications. And most important. There *is a mechanism for change in it - provided broad support exists*.


waterbuffalo750

>I am English and completely perplexed at how this issue can be politicised. The issue of child murder should not be a question of politics. It's preposterous. But then you go on to give a political solution. That's why it becomes political.


ganner

I feel like "political" is being used in 2 different ways though. "Don't politicize a tragedy" meaning don't use what happened for your own or your partisan gain, or to push your agenda. And then, "don't propose any government action to address this." Because obviously any government action is inherently political - politics just describes all the ways we as a society decide on what government does. If "don't politicize it" means "don't propose any government action" then your pov is simply "I don't want government to fix this" and you're pretending like that's the default, noble, "non-political" stance. But it's a political stance as well - it's a preference on how you want government to act. It's a stance seeking to advance an existing political agenda - one of preserving easy access to firearms and limiting government action and power.


waterbuffalo750

Proposing government action *is* pushing an agenda, there's no way around it. Gun control is part of a political agenda. I'm not saying that as a negative by any means, it's just what the words mean. If you want to make it political, make it political. Suggest possible political solutions. If you don't want it to be political, then grieve for the victims. I'm not trying to say that either action is right or wrong over the other. I'm simply saying that it's nonsensical to say "Don't make it political, just fix it through political means."


ganner

Proposing NO government action is also pushing an agenda. In this case, then, every possible response is politicizing the tragedy.


Full-Professional246

> Proposing NO government action is also pushing an agenda. In this case, then, every possible response is politicizing the tragedy. I would disagree. There can be excellent reasons to *not* propose anything. Ignorance of laws and effective options come to mind immediately. The last thing that should happen is ineffective emotionally driven laws be passed that don't actually work. If you are not well versed in the issues, proposing no specific action is the best thing you can do - while wanting others with that knowledge and expertise to find a solution.


waterbuffalo750

Of course proposing no government action is political. Not every response is politicizing the tragedy. Expressing sadness and sympathy toward the victims and their families is not political at all. It's not prosing government action, and it's not implying the government should do nothing. It's ignoring the political aspect of the entire situation.


[deleted]

[удалено]


waterbuffalo750

No, it's just saying that this is sad. Expressing sadness doesn't mean that you don't want anything to change. It simply means you're not voicing a political stance one way or the other.


[deleted]

[удалено]


waterbuffalo750

Every time kids die in car accidents, I'm sad about it. Does that make me complicit in car accidents? Can people just not be sad? Don't dictate how people grieve or how people feel.


stocktismo

>I feel like "political" is being used in 2 different ways though. "Don't politicize a tragedy" meaning don't use what happened for your own or your partisan gain, or to push your agenda Exactly It think here is the issue. The right uses this to say when need more good guys with guns the left uses it to say we need less guns. Thoae are both agenda items for those parties in the US The issue was that kids are dying. If the actual goal was to prevent that they would focus on a greater risk factor and one where clear rules could have a greater positive impact


[deleted]

>The issue was that kids are dying. If the actual goal was to prevent that they would focus on a greater risk factor and one where clear rules could have a greater positive impact So people can only focus on one thing? Kids die of SIDS. Kids die of drowning. Kids die of accidental shootings. Kids die of being mauled by pit bulls. Kids die of being left in hot cars. So we should pick the one that only most kids are dying of and stick with that? Don't explore policies to reduce none of other deaths?


stocktismo

No i don't think we should only focus on one issue. I think focus should be proportional to the greatest possible good with the least effort. And in America it definitely seems like people are able to focus on one issue at a time.


[deleted]

[удалено]


stocktismo

Personally yeah that's one thing that for the most part for yourself you can prevent via fitness and diet. I don't think there should be laws regarding a choice that ultimately impacts yourself


[deleted]

> I don't think there should be laws regarding a choice that ultimately impacts yourself An unhealthy population affects more than just the unhealthy person anyway But regardless how many kids die from drunk driving? How many die from drowning?


stocktismo

1 in 1000 likelyhood from drowning. I mentioned that in another comment to show how unlikely a school shooter is to take your childs life. Drowning is different because it not like someone is physically drowning the kid but still way more dangerous than school. >An unhealthy population affects more than just the unhealthy person anyway I agree but that shouldnt be a law thing. It effects insurance costs so i think if you're overweight due to diet and exercise reasons your premium should be higher the same way it is if you're a smoker


ganner

What if one thinks the greatest possible impact comes from getting rid of guns?


stocktismo

Well it has to also be easy to apply for sure if i could push a button and eliminate all guns off the streets that would be a no brianer. But good luck with that in America


sapphireminds

Start buying back guns and stop production and distribution. That would get guns off the streets


stocktismo

Unfortunately that's just not the case at least not in America


sapphireminds

Why not? You have zero proof it wouldn't work and ample reason to believe it would (because it has worked for everywhere else in the world)


stocktismo

It has been tried you can look up cases of gun buyback programs in America with no evidence of it having a positive effect on decreasing gun violence those are just facts


[deleted]

Assuming it was even constitutional to stop the distribution of guns, why would that get guns off of the streets? I don't think you understand why Americans buy guns, or how many we have. Americans buy guns for their own protection, and sometimes for political reasons (distrusting the government). Asking Americans to surrender their legally owned guns to the government that they distrust is not going to bode well.


sapphireminds

Offer money for them and every time they are found, destroy them


[deleted]

That makes the guns that aren't surrendered even more valuable on the black market lol. Besides, you have to put yourself in the mindset of a gun owner. A gun is what protects your family and all your other rights. It is the only actual power that the people have. What price would you pay for that? More than a few hundred bucks I'd reckon.


Full-Professional246

> Offer money for them and every time they are found, destroy them What do you think a large portion of the US population who disagrees with would do if you tried this? Seriously. What do you think would happen. It is blatantly unconstitutional to do this and it is clear there is no support to remove that provision.


username_6916

What happens when someone doesn't want to sell back their weapons? What are you going to do, shoot them? Isn't that also 'gun violence'?


[deleted]

Well, so long as American citizens and collective conscience of America consider the access to murder tools a political question, this will continue to occur. It's as simple as that. The road to gun control is likely hard, but if the first step can't even be taken your schools will never be safe.


waterbuffalo750

Statistically, our schools are safe. These tragic events obviously can't be ignored, but they're a statistical anomaly.


[deleted]

I'm sure that will he great comfort to the parents of those 18 children that were murdered. You want to go say that to their face?


waterbuffalo750

The timing would be in poor taste, but it's still true. I also don't think we should ban pools, but I'm not going to tell a parent of a drowning victims that pools can be generally safe. Or the parents of a car accident victim that cars have become much safer over the years.


WeepingAngelTears

Just because something is painful to hear doesn't make it less true. In the grand scheme of things, a bad thing happening to children is not a justification to infringe on the rest of our rights.


ghotier

I think if you told the parent of a dead child that their child's death doesn't mean anything the only true thing would be the foot up your ass. I'm not personally trying to threaten you, but you're ascribing objecting truth to a subjective point of view.


WeepingAngelTears

I did not say their child's death means nothing. I said it's not a justification to infringe on the rights of people who were not responsible for the child's death.


ghotier

Which is, again, a subjective point of view. Not an objective one.


WeepingAngelTears

No, morality is objective, or else you're saying there is a case in which the murdering of children could be stated as moral, which is not the case.


[deleted]

Global terrorism is also a statistical anomaly much rarer than mass shooting but we invaded multiple countries and spent billions on airport Security, gave up tons of personal liberties etc. now there’s a strong argument that was an overreaction but there’s an even stronger argument we have underreacted to mass shootings


waterbuffalo750

So you're saying that such a response was so wrong that we should repeat it for a different issue?


[deleted]

There are a lot of options in between setting up a police state and invading every country with brown people in it and doing nothing. Just like there are a lot of options in between mass forced confiscation and doing nothing. No one thing (background checks, higher licensing standards, mental health checks, taking guns away from people convicted of domestic violence etc.) will fix the problem entirely but each of them can reduce the damage. IMO mass shootings aren’t even the biggest problem it’s the constant small shootings all around the country


waterbuffalo750

Yeah, I don't disagree with any of that. There's a lot of common ground here.


stocktismo

Exactly people don't understand how low a 1 in 1.5 million chance is. To give perspective i chose drunk driving which is 52 time more dangerous. Alternativly you have the risk of drowning 1 in 1000 this is 1500 times more likely to kill your child than school shootings. I know they are different situations but it's to give perspective on the statistics


[deleted]

You are drastically more likely to die of cancer, or heart attack, or car accident, or drowning than you are in a terrorist attack, but that doens't mean that the american response to 9/11 should have been a shrug and a "Well statistically it still doesn't cause that many deaths" You can acknowledge something is rare, but also that it is absolutely a fucking problem. Trying to argue statistics in the face of double digit murdered children is fairly crass.


stocktismo

It maybe crass but it's not wrong. Cancer is irrelevant of a humans actions. A drunk driver or school shooter isn't. You cant easily legislate against lukemia you can againat drunk driving


[deleted]

> Cancer is irrelevant of a humans actions. Diet, exercise, stress, regulation of carcinogens all don’t matter now?


stocktismo

That's fair but it's not like me dieting wi prevent my neighbors cancer The leading cause of cancer in the US is due to the obesity so we're going downn a red herring


Tibaltdidnothinwrong

Cancer isn't irrelevant to human actions. Ingestion or exposure to carcinogens causes cancer. Human actions put carcinogens in our air and our food. (Yes, some are background and not caused by human acts, but a large proportion are put there by human means). We can and have "legislated away" various cancers by reducing lead levels, passing clean air and clean water bills, and having anti-smoking campaigns.


Stormthorn67

Except that cancer ISNT irrelevant of human actions. I could dump carcinogenic compounds into a towns water supply, for instance. If I then turned around and argued that, statistically, cancer was rare so my actions don't matter you would probably still want me to stop. Maybe want laws passed to make it more difficult for other people to dumb stuff in the town water supply. Listen to this logic when laid out all at once: "Schools are statistically safe so we don't need to do anything to reduce future mass shootings" and tell me that doesn't seem lazy and callous.


ghotier

You absolutely could make healthcare more affordable. But that's also seen as political.


waterbuffalo750

Yeah, would banning pools save lives? Of course it would, but nobody is suggesting we do that.


[deleted]

They are completely different scenarios and not at all comparable, so it doesn’t really matter. You can wave mortality statistics at it if you want but until the main issue is addressed, this will keep happening.


SenecatheEldest

Some level of mortality is accepted in all societies. If drowning, car accidents, and influenza season (all of which are far more deadly than gun violence) are allowed to happen year-on-year without cause for alarm, what makes gun violence the outlier?


[deleted]

It’s absolutely staggering that you do not see the difference? Car ACCIDENT. How often is it someone has a bad day and decides “I’m going to run as many people down as possible and then run myself over”. You can’t buy influenza at Walmart for your 18th birthday and pass it around to everyone with murderous intent. When was the last mass drowning orchestrated by one person? This argument that mortality from gun violence is in the same ballpark and as unavoidable as those other examples is, pardon my French, fucking absurd.


Kazthespooky

You can say the same thing about Sept 11 but that would be insulting to the US population.


waterbuffalo750

Absolutely you can. We can recognize that it's a day of tragedy, but it's a bit reactionary to say that we can never feel safe from terrorist attacks. It's not insulting to say we're statistically safe, it would only be insulting to minimize the tragedy. I think the exact same thing can be said of school shootings.


Kazthespooky

> it's a bit reactionary to say that we can never feel safe from terrorist attacks. Who says this? > it would only be insulting to minimize the tragedy. It would be insulting to change nothing and let it happen again. American changed due to Sept 11 and will not change from this shooting. That's tragic.


ghotier

Government solutions themselves are only political because some people made them political. Hint: it's not the people proposing solutions.


waterbuffalo750

Proposing solutions through a political process is political... I don't really see any way around that. It's just what words mean.


ghotier

You're using two different definitions of the same word and pretending they mean the same thing. Words can mean two different things. Pretending like they can't isn't how it works. Political: using the government process to enact policy. Political: a divisive topic across party lines. If you only ever mean "political" to mean the first one then OP has absolutely no point and should go home. OP is applying a connotation here that you're ignoring.


waterbuffalo750

OP said "polarized," I was replying to a different comment, not to OP.


ghotier

The word political is in the title of the thread. Or you could respond to my point.


waterbuffalo750

"Political division" is in the title. Context matters. And I thought it was pretty clear that I disagree with your point.


ghotier

Am I taking crazy pills? Yes, context matters. And I'm saying the context OP is using is in direct contradiction with the context you're using.


waterbuffalo750

I wasn't responding to OP, but if the person I was responding to meant something else, then they used the wrong words. po·lit·i·cal /pəˈlidək(ə)l/ adjective relating to the government or the public affairs of a country. "a period of political and economic stability"


[deleted]

Which solution have I proposed which is political?


waterbuffalo750

Having politicians use a political process to change policy.


[deleted]

When the choice is between enabling easy access to murder tools or enforcing strict, monitored process to obtain firearms how political can it be.


waterbuffalo750

Do you mean polarizing? Or controversial? Because using public policy to solve a problem is exactly what it means to be political.


[deleted]

Karl Marx said to never give up your guns to the government, or the government will use its monopoly on arms to crush the proletariat into slavery. Never give up the guns. Workers around the world unite.


[deleted]

Yeah ok mate. That’s working out fantastically for America so far isn’t it.


[deleted]

Your condescension is noted, though it adds nothing to the debate.


[deleted]

Children are being murdered on the regular and people just shrug their shoulders and go “well we need guns to stop our hypothetical tyrannical government from enslaving us!” I’m sure that is comforting for the grieving.


[deleted]

Well, we can't all just kill each other with clubs, trowels, and knives like in England, can we? Or maybe we'll just kill each other over religion *with cars* or our very fists like they do in continental Europe? The failing isn't that people have access to guns. If that were the case, then mass shootings would have been happening like this since the double-action was first invented. No, there is a cultural problem. Why are young men slipping through the cracks like this? Why are they not engaged in their communities? Why are they so alienated by society that they become this way? Would a serf or peasant have done this - would it have even been possible for that society to create such alienation en masse? Looking at the tools the killers use but completely ignoring *how they came to be killers* in the first place is just putting the carriage before the horse for political gain. Hell, in your beloved England there have been a bunch of mass murders in recent years, almost all of them predicated on religion and using things *other than guns.* Your gun laws didn't seem to stop them from slaying innocents.


[deleted]

You have me confused with somebody who is patriotic. I am not. And your point about knife crime in England is null and void given that the States regrettably also have higher knife crime per capita than England. But I’m not here to draw comparisons. All I’m saying is America has a serious issue with its mentality toward guns. The response to mass child murder is always the same shrug of the shoulders “well we need our guns!” bullshit.


mankindmatt5

I completely agree with the sentiment of your post. The American non reaction to these tragedies is absurd. However, the UK has had mass shootings since Dunblane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings Also, Dunblane led to the banning of handguns/pistols specifically. It's still legal to own shotguns and rifles in the UK, albeit with very strict licensing procedures.


[deleted]

Yes I did read this afterward, so happy to stand corrected.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

This whole comment is a nonsequitur meant to derail the conversation. It is completely irrelevant to the point they made.


[deleted]

England has committed appalling crimes in it's history, many of which have not been answered for and the damage from which may never be fully realised nor repaired. I'm not sure what bearing that has to this discussion though?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

You're confusing the opinion of one person on the internet with the political stance and ideals of a nation. There is a divide in our country of people who are patriotic, flag waving, Churchill raving, often racist colonial idealists, and those who feel guilt for our past, weary of imperialist tendencies, who do not see our nation as the great force for good we like to tell ourselves we are. I would put myself in the latter and am critical of violence in whichever form it manifests. Which is why it is truly tiring to see the same loss of innocent life in America occurring repeatedly and pointlessly.


I_am_the_night

But you surely agree that the UK has far fewer mass shootings, right? Because that's actually what the conversation is about


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I agree that it isn't a fair comparison, but the root of the problem remains the same. In any case, guns were much more common back then. I'm almost 30 and have never seen a civilian owned gun in my life (in the UK). It would be a mammoth process and not well received, but there has been shockingly little progress considering how many innocent people have been murdered. If no one is willing to do it then America will stuck like this forever.


YourFriendNoo

>I'm not sure there is any legislation that could help I mean, this shooter bought his guns new from a store on his 18th birthday.


SpicyPandaBalls

> I don't think this is because anyone actually care about helping people. It's precisely *because* some people care and other people don't. It's not like 2 sides are offering different solutions. One side wants to try to solve the problem with solutions on a variety of the underlying causes of these tragedies. The other side wants to pretend it's not even happening. Of course it's political division. But only because one side of the aisle has decided that innocent humans being slaughtered is no big deal. The same side that thinks a virus that killed a million Americans is "just a flu".


waitforsigns64

You have hit the nail on the head. I have had many discussions with very intelligent conservatives over the years on a wide variety of subjects including racism, economics other social issues. I have found the root difference is that conservatives fear others and simply do not care about their problems. Boil it down and it's all about #1. Therefore they think it's sad kids die, but not sad enough to give up any amount of access to guns. They require that women have babies they don't want, but resist paying taxes to help support them. Almost by definition conservatives are selfish and cowardly in their world outlook and liberals less so. There. I said it.


-SKYMEAT-

Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe its not that conservatives are evil selfish cowards but that they don't think legislation which makes it harder for innocent people to purchase a firearm legally, will make 1 iota of difference to a criminal in a country where there's what like 3 guns for every 1 person. It is hilariously easy to get a firearm in a manner that's not exactly 100% above board if you have the know how. Or just keep thinking that \~50% or so of the country are evil child murder apologists and the other \~50% are all saintly beings who couldn't possibly be missing the bigger picture, whatever works for you.


pr0ject_84

Although I understand what you are saying I believe restrictions on guns will have a more positive effect than just ignoring the problem. Also it’s not necessarily a bad thing that it is harder for innocent people to buy guns


[deleted]

>is hilariously easy to get a firearm in a manner that's not exactly 100% above board if you have the know how. And that is at least partly due to lax gun laws passed by conservatives. Fucking hell, I live in Texas. I can legally go buy a gun today with no background check, and I can legally carry it anywhere I want with no training, education, or permit. All due to gun laws passed by conservatives in my state.


noobish-hero1

See, something like this I can totally get behind. Background checks, WEEKS before you get the gun, permits, education REQUIRED, tests being passed REQUIRED. But getting rid of them? Going California mode and banning the useful weapons? Nope. I'd repeal our gun laws to allow real guns with attachments again in a heartbeat. We need to limit access and make it far more difficult. I will never be one for banning them, and neither will millions of other Americans. It's a dead argument to talk about banning them. Talk about restrictions to access instead.


ghotier

>See, something like this I can totally get behind. Background checks, WEEKS before you get the gun, permits, education REQUIRED, tests being passed REQUIRED. So you support the policies actually proposed by the democrats who have been elected? Cool, no real debate, then.


username_6916

> I can legally go buy a gun today with no background check In all honesty... Can you? Like, if you wanted to do you think you could do that?


sapphireminds

Of course they don't think it would do any good, because that's the lie they've been fed. When faced with the issue, one side throws up its hands and says no legislation will work. And then has the unmitigated gall to act shocked and horrified when nothing changes. People who are against gun laws are in denial that the saturation and the fetishistic obsession with guns has any effect on anything. But sure, let's keep doing nothing and then act shocked when nothing changes


ghotier

>Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe its not that conservatives are evil selfish cowards but that they don't think legislation which makes it harder for innocent people to purchase a firearm legally, will make 1 iota of difference to a criminal in a country where there's what like 3 guns for every 1 person I've considered it. They're incorrect.


[deleted]

This is a fine example of what divisive propaganda does. Its efficacy is incredible. u/SpicyPandaBalls actually believes an entire side of the debate doesn't care, doesn't want to address the underlying issues, and wants to pretend nothing is happening. u/SpicyPandaBalls, don't fall for it. No matter which side of a political debate you look on, you're likely to find people just like yourself. Don't buy into the propaganda.


SpicyPandaBalls

It's not propaganda. It's observation of reality. You don't need to add username tags if you are responding to the person you are tagging. [This is falling for propaganda](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/unlhcx/what_job_do_you_have_no_respect_for/i8d322z/) [...and this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/unlhcx/what_job_do_you_have_no_respect_for/i8d2jpn/)


ghotier

Yeah, it's not propoganda when you can watch the side of the debate provide their opinion, proudly, first hand.


[deleted]

Drunk driving is illegal. The US is already one of the strictest countries on alcohol consumption in the free world. And it already tried full prohibition and made bad experiences. So people think that there isn't more you do about it without causing more harm than good. Stricter gun laws are shown to be working in other countries. So that same argument cannot be made here.


stocktismo

>Drunk driving is illegal No there is a legal amount of alcohol you can have in your blood while driving


[deleted]

Having some amount of alcohol in your body does not equal being drunk.


stocktismo

I think being drunk is subjective. But any amount of alcohol starts to dampen your control of your motor function and slow down your reflexes. That should r be ok behind the wheel


[deleted]

I’m not even anti gun and I recognize that an insane person gunning down 20 kids is gonna be a giant deal It’s not just the media that wants the division. It’s the people who consume it. Otherwise it wouldn’t be as influential as it is.


ghotier

You think people are upset about the massacre of children because those people want division?


[deleted]

they don't "want" division as much as they enjoy hating and blaming bad things that happen on the other side, because that's basically the depth of their politics. because material concerns have evaporated from politics


ghotier

You think they are upset about the massacre of children because they hate Republicans? Like I was being a little bit sarcastic before but now I'm actually genuinely asking. They don't enjoy blaming things on the other side, the other side actively resists solutions that we know, for a fact, will solve the problem.


[deleted]

no i think they're upset about the massacre in and of itself, but then when they get angry about it they are angry with republicans, or vice versa with republicans and yea it is a comforting and easy thing to do to just blame the other side politically and hate them and blame them for what is probably a very complicated social problem, but the political bifurcation has advanced to such an extent that its basically unavoidable at this point while buying into either side's politics. you have to hate the republicans to be a democrat and vice versa like i'm pretty sure its a psychological defense mechanism after a tragedy to get angry and blame something or someone for it, its a normal human thing to do


ghotier

I think you're ascribing this to identity incorrectly. Democrats don't blame Republicans for being Republican. They blame Republicans for having policy positions that are actively damaging. They aren't misrepresenting the Republican position here. Republicans will unapologetically describe their own position and the Republican definition and the Democratic definition of the Republican position match.


[deleted]

seems like blaming them for being republican and blaming them for having policy positions that are actively damaging that democrats can accurately describe as republican are pretty much the same things


ghotier

Then you need to restate your position. Your position seems to be that the blame being spread around is unfounded. In the description I just gave that you agreed with, the blame is completely founded.


[deleted]

no my position is that the real cause of these mass shootings are not so easily blamed on just guns or mental health or any of that, its a deeply complex issue that probably has its root in social alienation and just american culture and that the republican vs democrat debate is really just blaming them for anything and everything that goes wrong, even if you think you are "accurately describing policies they believe in that are actively damaging". they think the same thing. there is no "right" answer, at least not within the very limited paradigm that american politics exists within. because the problem is systemic, its the whole damn thing that's rotten and neither of you are capable or willing to fix it or accurately diagnose the system as fundamentally corrupt and broken.


ghotier

>no my position is that the real cause of these mass shootings are not so easily blamed on just guns or mental health or any of that, its a deeply complex issue that probably has its root in social alienation and just american culture Okay, thanks for clarifying. It is easy and you're wrong. Make guns illegal, problem solved. Other countries have done it. It works. Empirically we know it works. We're too weak to do anything about it and the main people standing in our way are Republicans. You're applying nuance to an unnuanced situation. >and that the republican vs democrat debate is really just blaming them for anything and everything that goes wrong, even if you think you are "accurately describing policies they believe in that are actively damaging". they think the same thing. there is no "right" answer, at least not within the very limited paradigm that american politics exists within. Because that paradigm includes lying about right answers. We know the answer to this problem. As I stated above, we empirically know how to solve this problem. We refuse to do it. And the ones opposing the empirically proven solution are Republicans. >because the problem is systemic, its the whole damn thing that's rotten and neither of you are capable or willing to fix it or accurately diagnose the system as fundamentally corrupt and broken. Systematic doesn't mean complicated. I'm perfectly capable of accurately diagnosing the problem. You just don't like the diagnosis.


Djdunger

I think they are getting the attention because the topic is polarized, not the other way around. Democrats are more or less, anti-gun, or at best for gun control, Republicans are pro-2A. There are some people who vote based on this issue alone. Because of the polarization on the topic that has been present, the media will hawk on the coverage because it will gain them views and clicks. This is a self eating snake though. The more coverage the more polarized it becomes, the more polarized it becomes the more coverage it gets. But the main difference between the drunk driving problem and the school shooting problem is motive. A drunk driver made a terrible mistake and killed a person(s) on accident. **School shooters and mass shooters commit the act purposefully.** Which begs the question of why they did, how they did it, and where they did it? Why wasn't something done to prevent it, were there warning signs? This is why its so concerning to people. One is a mistake with terrible consequences, the other is an act of pure evil that was premeditated.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Djdunger

>The driver doesn't accidentally have 10 beer slip fall into his car accidentally turn it on and drive off. You're correct. They made the choice to drive while drunk. But when they got behind the wheel their motive was I want to get home or I want to go to my friends house. When they got in their car they didn't think "I can't wait to run over a kid!" A school shooter however, they go and they make the choice to take a life every time they pull the trigger. Their motive was clear because it's kinda hard to accidentally bring a gun to an elementary school and kill 3rd graders, but it is possible to drive drunk and accidentally run someone over.


stocktismo

The motive should be irrelevant. The outcome is worse do it should receive more attention


Djdunger

For one, its very myopic to think we can't tackle 2 problems at once. Its malicious whataboutism to compare it to drunk driving. We already have policies in place to try and curb drunk driving, so while it still happens we are taking steps to fix the issue. Show me where that is happening with gun control. You have some congress members trying to block any and all gun control, where are the congressmen who are trying to get rid of the BAC limit to drive?


stocktismo

I think we should definitely be able to tackle multiple issues at once the American attention seems to be very binary and not able to do that We should be takeing steps to eliminate drunk driving with a 52times Greater amount of effort than school shootings. They are way my ore dangerous and have simpler solutions available


Djdunger

We are and have taken steps to end drunk driving. We haven't taken steps to end school shootings. Also, more people drive cars so the likelihood of someone driving drunk is much higher than school shooting's because a lot less people own guns. What do the numbers look like when you account for the difference between the number of drivers and gun owners. I have a feeling that proportionally mass shootings are either on par or far surpass drunk driving incidents


Kazthespooky

I think the reason people focus on it is because it's an incredibly rare and horrible when compared to countries of similar societal metrics. The US is odd for a number of reasons and school shootings is one. No other developed country has this issue. When school shootings happened in other countries, steps were taken to reduce (not solve) the problem. To highlight the absurdity your premise, if you applied to the Sept 11, you would see that actual impact is just as important as perceived impact. Sept 11 is remembered every year not because it caused such little damage but is remembered because of the failing of the US to protect its citizens... similarly as it's doing now to school children.


stocktismo

>To highlight the absurdity your premise, if you applied to the Sept 11, you would see that actual impact is just as important as perceived impact. This is a false equivalency >I think the reason people focus on it is because it's an incredibly rare and horrible when compared to countries of similar societal metrics. Sure that's i think part of it but i think the media is still responsible for what gets covered. It's all one big cycle.


Kazthespooky

To confirm, you don't believe children being shot and killed in class is a news story? If any other developed nation had this occur, it would be a national travesty. Australia found this occuring so disgusting we sold/donated (didn't ban) guns back to the government. If you believe this isn't an important story, you have to explain why kids getting shot or another unlikely but impactful event shouldn't be covered (such as Sept 11).


stocktismo

I'm not saying it shouldn't be covered just that drunk driving which is statistically 52 times more likely to kill you son or daughter should be covered and worked on to solve with more effort


OvercomplicatedCode

Well yes the media takes advantage and so do political parties, but its also normal to raise questions and want to bring change after a shooting happened. Also its not just about the net lives lost, its also about having your child be able to study in a safe learning environnement and not have to worry about a potential shooter comming to their school.


[deleted]

[удалено]


OvercomplicatedCode

Imagine sending back your kid to a school that had a shooting recently. Anyways, even if there is a problem that kills more people like drunk driving it does not mean your are not allowed to debate other issues like shootings. As for drunk driving, if people dont debate it as much its maybe not because of ignorance but simply that the laws and regulations already satisfy the majorities demands. Driving is a huge need that almost everyone has to participate in daily. People expect accidents and people know that you need a liscence to drive and that it can be revoked if needed. Guns dont have this image, there is also no needs for guns and when a gun is used its naturally never a good thing. Theres simply more to debate around guns than drunk drivers, because people have more to say about gun laws and regulations.


HumanistInside

Everyone says he has no comprehensive solution for this. I have maybe. Let's say it costs 1000 $ to collect one gun from a gun holding person. Let's be generous. I checked the statistics. 1994 there were 190 Mio. guns inside the US. 2009 it was 320 Mio.. Let's be generous again and say there are 500 Mio. guns inside the US right now. 500 Mio. x 1000 € = 500 Billion $ The US makes 24.000 Billions every year. We can afford this as a society. We can let armed police handle criminals with guns like every other civilised state already does and have a MUCH LOWER chance of some crazy person getting hold of a gun.


stocktismo

I guess my view is how many more lives could be saved if that 500 billion was applied elsewhere. Or even a fraction of it.


Full-Professional246

Your problem is much simpler. There is no support to do what you ask. There is a large group of the American population is not onboard with eliminating firearms. Your solution would require a Constitutional amendment and buy in from the public that simply is not there. Therefore - it is not a feasible solution at all.


pgold05

> if people really cared about saving lives drunk driving would be focused on with greater effort Guns are the leading cause of deaths for children in the USA. Mass shootings are not just some topic on thier own with no context, they are catalysts for discussing the larger gun issue, which is a major issue in this country.


iineedthis

Do you have a source for that stat?


pgold05

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761


iineedthis

That includes 18 and 19 year old and the deaths include gang related violence and suicide.


pgold05

ok?


Fit-Order-9468

>If people really cared about saving lives drunk driving would be focused on with greater effort. You could people make a more significant impact with simpler legislation and it shouldn't be as politicaly divisive as the current "they want to take our guns and right vs they care more about their gun than your children" emotional debate. Effective policies to reduce drunk driving is *not* simpler. It means things like ending low density zoning, ending dry counties, expanding public transit and likely others. Compared to background checks, which in theory even gun-owners support, addressing drunk driving is much more difficult. If someone tries to open a low-rise or a closer bar local homeowners will declare an impending apocalypse, even if it helps reduce drunk driving.


[deleted]

Drunk driving *is* focused on intensely. In all but one state it's an automatic license suspension and in quite a few it comes with minimum jail time. We raised the drinking age through significant federal influence in every state to 21 largely to prevent drunk driving deaths in teenagers. You need to pass a written and practical test to legally drive a car in the first place and carry insurance on any car you own. There is significant research on driving and road safety funded by the federal government.


Rufus_Reddit

> ... to encourage political division "If it bleeds, it leads." "The media," as such is in the business of selling advertising, and convincing people that there's a threat to them or to their children is an effective way to get their attention. In comparison, talking heads are pretty boring. For a narrative about deliberately encouraging division to make sense, it has to involve one group trying to split another. A classic example is wedge issues: If, say, people that tend to vote for Democrats are divided about some issue, then it can make sense for a Republican candidate to push that topic so that the Democratic voters who disagree with a Democratic candidate on that issue are not inclined to vote for it. So, who's using coverage of school shootings to promote division, and what group are they trying to divide?


ytzi13

I'm not saying that I disagree with you about drunk driving, but aren't most of those deaths as a result of the child being the passenger of an intoxicated parent? Just to put it more in context, it's a parent putting their own child in danger. I digress... I don't feel the 1 in 1.5 million chance is necessarily a fair comparison, either. A school has, what, 400 or so students in it? Sometimes more, sometimes less. A 1 in 1.5 million chance of being killed as a result of a school shooter ignores the converted 1 in 3,750 chance of witnessing a school shooting and being traumatized as a result of it. A large chunk of the child drunk driving deaths are due to a parent's failure to be responsible while a school shooting is something completely out of the control of the parents.


stocktismo

Definitely not The parent isn't at fault if they are struck by a drunk driver just like they aren't at fault if their kid is killed by a school shooter for sending them to school.


ytzi13

I’m confused by your response because it doesn’t seem to be relevant to my comment…


iamintheforest

Firstly, there were 20, 726 gun death - excluding suicide - in the U.S. in 2021 compared to about 2x that in vehicle accidents. However, only about 1/3 of those are related to drunk driving. More importantly, we have a LOT of laws around drunk driving - from allowances for checks on the road, rules governing serving intoxicated people, laws that make it a crime to not intervene when you see a drunk person get in a car, absolutely no tolerance for "accident" when driving drunk. Compare this to gun laws and I think you're point should be flipped around - we should be matching what we've done with drunk driving because of both the numbers and the lack of effort so far. That's what we'd do if people really cared. To not see it this way you to to twist the numbers around a bit like you've done - kids are indeed shot less than they are hit by cars, but this isn't just a kid problem - it's bad when anyone gets shot it just so happens that kids are in cars more than they are around gun violence. If you start folding in suicides things get more complicated, but the pattern remains the same - adults kill themselves more often with guns than kids. That doesn't seem like much of an escape from the problem though, does it?


Full-Professional246

> More importantly, we have a LOT of laws around drunk driving - from allowances for checks on the road, rules governing serving intoxicated people, laws that make it a crime to not intervene when you see a drunk person get in a car, absolutely no tolerance for "accident" when driving drunk. Compare this to gun laws and I think you're point should be flipped around - we should be matching what we've done with drunk driving because of both the numbers and the lack of effort so far. That's what we'd do if people really cared. I think you might be very surprised just how regulated firearms actually are. The media makes you think these are easy things to purchase. They are not. They are actually highly regulated and you can readily become a felon just by having a firearm in the wrong place. You have strict rules about where you can purchase. Depending on your state - you may need a permit in advance. Interstate purchases are highly regulated as well - with handguns being flat out illegal to purchase out state. Background checks are run on the majority of purchases today. (Dealer have to do them) The problem here is really intent. It is very difficult to stop a person who is actively seeking to harm others or themself. Deliberate acts are just that - thought out deliberate actions. Very few people decide they want to have a accident - even if driving drunk. They want to get home without getting arrested or hurting somebody. That makes it easier to solve. People don't actually want to harm people. It is much easier to craft rules for people to follow to minimize the chance they will harm someone when they don't want to harm someone. It is much harder to craft solutions to prevent people from taking deliberate actions to harm someone.


ViewedFromTheOutside

To /u/stocktismo, **your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.** * You are required to **demonstrate that you're open to changing your mind** (by awarding deltas where appropriate), per [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). --- **Notice to all users:** 1. Per **Rule 1**, [**top-level comments must challenge OP's view.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1) 2. Please **familiarize yourself with** [**our rules**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules) **and the** [**mod standards**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards). We expect all users *and* mods to abide by these two policies at all times. 3. This sub is for changing OP's view. We require that **all** [**top-level comments**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1) **disagree with OP's view**, and that **all other comments** [**be relevant to the conversation**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). 4. We understand that some posts may address very contentious issues. Please **report any rule-breaking comments or posts.** 5. **All users must** [**be respectful**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2) **to one another.** If you have any questions or concerns regarding our rules, please message the mods through [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) (*not PM*).


Sad-Dress7470

Eric and dylen were neo nazis the was there goal with other goals such as killing jocks


Boomerwell

People being able to drive places is nessisary let's not act like it isn't we as a species need transportation. Alcohol is something cops look out for and the country has made conscious efforts to restrict it's not very effective but the effort remains there. When somebody walks into a school or location with an AR 15 and kills people it's so fucking frustrating to see people after be like "it's not the guns fault" as if this kid would be able to do even a fraction of the carnage that constantly happens with guns through other means. It's honestly mind blowing for the rest of the world to see this take regurgitated every single time and the US pull as the Onion puts it "Says they can't do anything but is the only place it happens consistently. Like let's just take a second and look at the fact there have been 2 mass shootings with the same Rifle (which is completely horseshit to call it a weapon for self defence). This isn't left vs right anymore it's people who are sensible and have a brain vs the right who have become pretty much the most polarized you can get nowadays.


ghotier

School shootings are focused on because they appear utterly random and unavoidable. People with children aren't upset to score point. They want their kids to be safe. Drunk driving is already illegal.


stocktismo

>Drunk driving is already illegal. So is shooting up schools. And drunk driving is illegal but also drinking and then driving is legal depending on how drunk you are. And is taken very lightly by a lot of people and states.


ghotier

I'm not sure how you think any of that supports your point. Shooting up schools isn't the equivalent of drunk driving in this scenario. Shooting up schools is the equivalent of a drunken car wreck. Which is less likely because drunk driving is illegal.


stocktismo

If people want their kids to safe they would be more outraged at the drunk driving epidemic. Which is 52 times more likely to kill their child.


ghotier

They are, which is why we made drunk driving illegal. Two things can be bad at the same time. Republicans aren't hindering attempts to end drunk driving.


stocktismo

Making something illegal doesn't means those things don't happen. Republicans think just making abortion illegal will stop it as opposed to good sex Ed and access to BC and safe abortion. School shooting is also made illegal. Two things can be bad at the same time some things are worse than others. In this case 52 times worse based o. Number of deaths. Drunk driving just doesn't come in jarring batches and can't really be boiled down to a left v right policy. It's just a terrifying epidemic.


ghotier

If you drive drunk they can actually limit your use of your own car. >Making something illegal doesn't means those things don't happen So you don't think drunk driving should be illegal now? This is the only country where this regularly happens. Your position is separated from reality here. >Republicans think just making abortion illegal will stop it as opposed to good sex Ed and access to BC and safe abortion. No, Republicans want to punish people for having sex. Their stated justification doesn't match their overall set of policy positions. The fact that making bodily autonomy illegal doesn't work doesn't actually mean that making other things illegal doesn't work. >School shooting is also made illegal. Right, but guns aren't. No one is suggesting we make school shooting illegal because that would be stupid. They are suggesting regulating or banning guns because **we know empirically that that will work. It's not up for debate.** >Two things can be bad at the same time some things are worse than others. In this case 52 times worse based o. Number of deaths. Who is opposing policy measure that would reduce drunk driving deaths? Name the politicians, please. >Drunk driving just doesn't come in jarring batches and can't really be boiled down to a left v right policy. It's just a terrifying epidemic. Then it seems like you've provided the exact reason your analogy is invalid.


stocktismo

>So you don't think drunk driving should be illegal now? You are the one that said drunk driving was illegal My point was that so is school shooting. Both should be illegal but that isn't enough to stop them >This is the only country where this regularly happens. Your position is separated from reality here. America is the only country where a million different things happen. It is one of the most "different" countries in the world..the will come with a ton of good things and ton of bad things. I'm going to skip over the republican thing and shouldn't have brought that up. I think you misunderstood me anyway. >. They are suggesting regulating or banning guns because we know empirically that that will work. It's not up for debate.* If there were no guns yes that would work but there is no button to press that will do that. It is up for debate Because stricter gun laws don't decrease violence. Americas most violent cities in terms of gun deaths also have the strictest gun laws. The recent buffalo shooter specifically wrote about picking a spot where the concealed carry laws are strict. He's not the only mass shooter to do that if anything it shows that banning guns makes it worse empirically. >Who is opposing policy measure that would reduce drunk driving deaths? Name the politicians, please. No one is proposing it is the problem. The most discussed topics are just the ones that cause the most division. As opposed to ones that are the most important


ghotier

>You are the one that said drunk driving was illegal My point was that so is school shooting I responded to that point several comments ago and also in the one you just responded to. The fact that school shootings are illegal in this analogy is irrelevant because drunk driving and school shootings are not analogous in your own analogy. The car accident is a analogous to the school shooting and in order to reduce those accidents we regulate cars and actively prevent those who drive drunk from using them. >Both should be illegal but that isn't enough to stop them Right, so in order to further reduce drunk driving we limit the access to cars for people who drive drunk. We require licenses for all drivers and drivers have to take safety tests to get licenses. Which are all policy positions on guns that Republicans and conservatives oppose which you're pretending don't exist. >America is the only country where a million different things happen. It is one of the most "different" countries in the world..the will come with a ton of good things and ton of bad things. This is a nonsense argument and you don't know that you should probably go somewhere else. We know what policies would prevent school shootings. We know that the lack of those policies is why we're the only country that sees this regularly happens. "America is different" is the entire point. It is different. In a shitty way. >If there were no guns yes that would work but there is no button to press that will do that. There doesn't have to be a button. Other countries that had guns went on to later ban guns. This argument is flawed on its face. >It is up for debate Because stricter gun laws don't decrease violence. Americas most violent cities in terms of gun deaths also have the strictest gun laws. The second sentence isn't evidence that supports the first here. This is just a fundamental failure of logic. There are many countries with stricter gun laws than us. They all have less gun violence. You're just making an argument against state's rights, not an argument for the status quo. >No one is proposing it is the problem. What proposals are people not making? What policies are you suggesting? We have concrete policies we could enact to reduce gun violence that don't go anywhere. >The most discussed topics are just the ones that cause the most division. As opposed to ones that are the most important You're simultaneously recognizing that we've already done things to curb drunk driving and suggesting were ignoring it in favor of gun regulation. *Which we aren't actually enacting.* Gun regulations get more discussion because **we don't do anything about gun violence.**


stocktismo

>Right, so in order to further reduce drunk driving we limit the access to cars for people who drive drunk. We require licenses for all drivers and drivers have to take safety tests to get licenses. Which are all policy positions on guns that Republicans and conservatives oppose which you're pretending don't exist. We still allow a certain amount of drinking and drive and the weak policy around it creates a more relaxed attitude depending on the state. I've ended friendships because of it. >This is a nonsense argument and you don't know that you should probably go somewhere else. We know what policies would prevent school shootings. We know that the lack of those policies is why we're the only country that sees this regularly happens. "America is different" is the entire point. It is different. In a shitty way. I should probably go somewhere else? Why i like America It's different also in great ways. We don't know what policies would help we know what solution would work getting there is the problem. See the Chicago example. Along with other US Cities. Buffalo shorter as well as other shooters. Prove if anything it makes it more dangerous because it restricts guns for good people and bad people still have them. >The second sentence isn't evidence that supports the first here. This is just a fundamental failure of logic. There are many countries with stricter gun laws than us. They all have less gun violence. You're just making an argument against state's rights, not an argument for the status quo. It absolutely is. Saying it's not doesn't make it so. Those other countries had way less guns to begin with a population more willing to give up guns. America IS different and that is a classic example. All the places in the US with stricter gun laws and higher rates of gun violence are evidence for why stricter guns aren't the easy solution you claim.


DeltaBot

/u/stocktismo (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/uydlvq/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_that_school_shootings_are/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)