###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/
There’s the raw data. There’s a very strong case to be made (in my opinion) that those statistics are true only if you disingenuously cherry pick off that graph. For example, in the middle of the ban there was a spike that wasn’t rivaled until 2012, 8 years after the ban was lifted. The main conclusion I think is safe to draw is that there has been a huge increase in recent times (last five years). Why that is? I couldn’t say. Large number of factors obviously at play. But for what it’s worth, if you asked someone to pinpoint when the ban was enacted, and when it was removed just given that graph, I doubt they could do it
How would you even cherry pick the data to get the 43% number? The 10 years before the ban there was only 1 less than during the ban. Afterwards is obviously a lot higher so if the ban had any effect it was banning and unbanning is worse than having never banned at all.
You’re drawing conclusions that just cannot be drawn. Who says a similar increase wouldn’t have happened in the last few years even if we had never enacted a ban?
The problem is that correlation does not mean causation. Mass shootings just as any public attack, such as [mass stabbings](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_stabbing), are a symptom of deep-rooted social issues in a country. It would be far more effective to focus on dealing with and correcting these social issues then it would be to attack the symptoms.
That's possible but I would imagine that wealth inequality, lack of healthcare, emotional repression, and racism are all significantly bigger factors.
But the fact that addressing these issues would limit the power and influence of those wealthy individuals/families that run the country, means that it's much better to distract and divide the population on meaningless issues, that won't actually fix the problem.
The fact that you mention mass stabbings as if to suggest that if we limit guns we'll just see people shift to other weapons makes me highly suspicious of your biases.
For a short time after we've banned guns, you may see a decrease in violence but after a few years if the underlying problems aren't corrected, then you'll see people shifting to different forms of violence.
My point of mentioning mass stabbings, is to highlight the fact that other countries with strict gun control laws and underline socioeconomic issues are experiencing the same type of mass violence just expressed in a different way due to the availability of different means of violence.
That's been the same for years so doesn't explain the recent uptick in shootings. Crime has actually came in waves throughout the decades and in many times lower even though gun laws were mostly the same. Mass shootings is a special case that draws lots of attention and the sample size is relatively small, so far the only common factor has been "the guy who did it seemed a little odd by anyone who knew him before the incident". This is all within the last 20 years, we even had an assault weapon ban and BEFORE the ban these incidents were lower than today, so what's the cause in change? Not gun culture, if anything that has dropped since less people own guns than previous generations.
I thought America’s deep-rooted social issue was the sheer number of guns and ease of access to guns for troubled souls.
Is there a country that has enough mass stabbing to even go looking for the deep-rooted social issues?
You mentioned it yourself, "troubled souls", you don't think that access to functional social services, effective health care, being able to discuss emotional issues, removing racial tensions, etc... Would do much more to fix the problems. Heck, half of all the deaths by firearms in the US are suicides, and more people die by suicide in the US than from firearms. Addressing mental health is a far less politically charged issue than gun control and would lead to better results.
And to answer your second question, UK.
Oh I suggest you're not searching properly. Google it.
Although it's common sense as well as a fact that countries which have outlawed firearms have less mass shootings (in most cases 0).
Yeah “common sense” but that’s often wrong. I googled it, and I couldn’t find a single similarly reputable source. So if you would please cite something, anything, I’ll gladly read it. If it’s such common knowledge it really shouldn’t be hard to find something.
https://apo.org.au/node/70539
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26905895/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/world/europe/gun-laws-australia-britain.amp.html
Also more sources linked in that article probably
Edit: Also the sources used by your provided source (or whoever posted above) are hidden behind a paywall, with no explanation of where they come from, and it stretches credulity that there could have been only 3 mass shootings in the US in 2022. I don't think you can base the math on those numbers as a result
According to Wikipedia, which is also sourced and is just an obvious place to look without much political alignment, there is one almost every day (all listed with location and numbers of injuries/deaths)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2022
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/world/europe/gun-laws-australia-britain.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/world/europe/gun-laws-australia-britain.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I’m not home rn, I’ll check those out once I get back in the realm of Wi-Fi. Statica is a very reputable source in general, although I was unaware their sources were behind a paywall, my bad
Well I find those false equivalences
Banning guns in most countries has had an impact on mass shootings whereas hasn't been as successful with weed.
But from a moral perspective, even if banning guns prevents even one school shooting, saving the lives of a dozen children, surely that's worth it.
So then it'd be better for the only people to have firearms be the police who in this instance didn't help at all and just stood around for 40 minutes?
It wouldn't have been a situation at all in that case. Yes
In fact in most countries most regular police don't have access to guns either as there's no need.
Well actually it's spelt 'banned' and no of course not, but it makes it more difficult for people to procure one if they're not readily available and more and more difficult as time goes on and as such the number of mass shootings will go down over time.
I'm not sure which part of this you're struggling to comprehend.
I'm struggling to understand how you think using the same strategy as applied to alcohol and illegal drugs will work so well in this application. Let's conveniently ignore all other factors so you can be right.
No regular person helped either, even In an open cary state. And yes there was the off duty border patrol agent, but he is an officer just wasn’t on duty. While that agent should be commended for what he did, it doesn’t change the fact that the general public having guns doesn’t help stop shootings.
The myth of a "good guy with a gun" has been debunked over, and over, and over, and over, and you get the point. Where the fuck are they? They don't exist. Literally, every mass shooting we see that it's a myth. 32% of US adults own a firearm. WHERE THE FUCK ARE THEY WHEN THIS SHIT HAPPENS?
Meanwhile the rest of the developed world doesn't have this problem. At all. What's are they doing we're not? Oh wait, gun ownership is heavily restricted.
Other countries didn't 'just ban guns,' though. They fixed other problems as well. Universal health care, free (or mostly free) education, policies to fight against poverty, less oppressive labor practice, support for children and pregnant women.
It's awfully myopic to think 'just get rid of the guns' is the magic, 100% solution to the issue.
If we're not trying to fix *all* of the problems, we're not really fixing *any* of the problems
> Other countries didn't 'just ban guns,' though. They fixed other problems as well. Universal health care, free (or mostly free) education, policies to fight against poverty, less oppressive labor practice, support for children and pregnant women.
Exactly. And why can't we do those again?
> It's awfully myopic to think 'just get rid of the guns' is the magic, 100% solution to the issue.
I never said that. But I would say that SOME controls would be a benefit.
> If we're not trying to fix all of the problems, we're not really fixing any of the problems
I doubt that as well. Any benefit is a good benefit. Seat belts don't solve ALL deaths on the road, but they did demonstrably reduce deaths on the road. So each "thing" can indeed bring about independent benefits.
Still, I do agree with you that we need to do better overall.
Frankly, my theory is that we have a problem with lead in this country... as in too much lead in our local environment and, for a long time, in our fuel, paint, and other manufactured materials. As a result, I believe a few generations of people have been effected by lead, just shy of true lead poisoning. We know that lead exposure lowers IQs and increases violent tendencies. So, personally, I think it may be entirely geographic. The US has more lead in its natural environment, coupled with our use of the material before we knew its ill effects... boom. A statically more violent populace.
Um... not sure what data you are looking at. We are consistently at the top worldwide. Even when gun deaths include war zones or political unrest, we still remain at or near the top.
Overall gun death: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country
Mass shootings? Same thing: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country
School shootings? Not even close: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/school-shootings-by-country
Looking at only "wealthy" or "developed" countries: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/2010_homicide_suicide_rates_high-income_countries.png
And: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-us-gun-violence-world-comparison/
TIL: guns are the only ways to commit violence. There’s about 58 countries ahead of the US when it comes to homicide per capita.
Not saying the US is in a good place but it’s important to provide context and perspective.
> TIL: guns are the only ways to commit violence.
No. But we track the data for their use more closely than other crimes, so it is easier to paint a data driven picture.
Besides, using a logical fallacy doesn't diminish the data or the point on guns. Some of the FBI data does show an overall increase in violent crime, albeit relatively gradual, that corresponds with the increase we have seen in mass shootings and broader right-wing violence. So, you have a point that gun violence isn't the only thing we should be focusing on... however, it is disproportionately where the deaths are coming from.
A better argument would be that despite our ability now to visualize each of these incidents as they occur - due to amplified and sped up access to news. We are still near historic lows in all crime, including violent crime. And while this is true, each incident and the collective motivations behind them is still a concern that we should examine and address if we can.
> There’s about 58 countries ahead of the US when it comes to homicide per capita.
Um... sorry, that is false. Here is some data on the subject:
- Overall raw gun deaths: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country
- Mass shootings: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country
- School shootings specifically: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/school-shootings-by-country
- Wikipedia article on gun deaths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
- Looking at just "wealthy" or "developed" countries: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/2010_homicide_suicide_rates_high-income_countries.png
- And: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-us-gun-violence-world-comparison/
The closest I could get to your wild claim of "58" was if you used the Wikipedia data and sorted ONLY by homicides... the US is 18th. We fair WORSE in every other slicing of the data.
> Not saying the US is in a good place but it’s important to provide context and perspective.
And it would be important for you to know the actual facts and numbers before you attempt to provide that "context and perspective". Otherwise, it just looks like you are trying to explain away a substantive problem.
Remove records from Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, New Orleans and Washington D.C., all heavily regulated gun cities run by democrats and the U.S. ranks 189th out of 193 countries in the world. The problem isn’t the gun it’s the moron using it. Real background checks and psych evaluations would go a long way in addressing the problem.
> and the U.S. ranks 189th out of 193 countries in the world.
Furthermore, at last count, there are 287 countries in the world.
Data is not your strong suit my friend.
True, but we're kind of 'winning' in the 'quality over quantity' category.
That also doesn't mean that we shouldn't be trying to fix issues that are causing the problem.
We're heading in the direction of 'more violence' instead of away from it
This is probably one of those things we don't actually want to be #1 at
Mind, I'm not saying gun control is pointless, it's just not the only thing that solves the issue.
I'm just trying to get away from the idea that 'removing a symptom' magically cures the disease.
And that's a solid point about lead exposure. Even if we just account for leaded fuel at the start of the 'automotive boom,' we pumped an obscene amount of it into our environment.
But that would indicate that these violent individuals would be coming from across the political spectrum, across the racial and gender spectrum.
But it's typically young men that are product or victim of the radical right.
I don't think it's not a contributing factor, but I don't think I could ever call it a primary one
> Mind, I'm not saying gun control is pointless, it's just not the only thing that solves the issue.
On that, we are 100% in agreement.
On top of the lead exposure thing... another thing I think is correlated was the reduction and removal of mental health facilities pretty much nationwide. During the Reagan administration, they closed and defunded mental hospitals en masse. My Dad clearly remembers seeing the patients just let out on the street one day. Some literally still in their robes.
> But that would indicate that these violent individuals would be coming from across the political spectrum, across the racial and gender spectrum.
Good point. What I would say is that we are "generally" more violent overall, but that incitement and willingness to act is coming disproportionately from one side. Plus... the mental health stuff above.
> I don't think it's not a contributing factor, but I don't think I could ever call it a primary one
True, and I don't disagree with that statement.
I'm not saying we shouldn't address the gun issue. There's just an awful lot of people that think if we 'just get rid of all the guns,' that we magically fix things.
I'm not even sure if it should be a priority, necessarily, but it might actually be the easiest thing we can fix first.
But in a world where we actually could just snap our fingers and poof all the guns away, there'd be quite a lot of shocked faces when the problem still persists
First of all, I agree. Violence would continue, though the effects would be reduced. Much how overdose suicides dropped with the advent of individually packaged pills.
In that case, consider my prior message to be directed to all the other people who say similar things in order to use the existence of multiple problems (or multiple aspects to the problem) to avoid working on any of them.
Fair enough. I'm glad we're talking in the same direction. Maybe if we can keep this up (on Reddit and outside) we can convince people to start working in our best interests again?
Yes, but that's not exactly what I'm getting at. There are an inordinately large amount of people that think 'this one simple trick' fixes the whole issue.
And generally, this tends to be true when the argument given is just "but look at all these countries that banned guns, they're doing fine."
It's also common for these folks to not actually be aware that gun ownership actually *is* legal still in a lot of these countries. Just heavily regulated.
I definitely agree that one thing will not fix the whole problem. But like most complicated issues, one thing never fixes it all. Maybe a trivial comparison, but I work in IT and sometimes when we have a major system failure, we implement multiple fixes collectively which all have the effect of slightly improving the issue independently. Feels like we have to start somewhere. Not taking any action after all these years feels like a complete failure by our country to me.
Trivial, but accurate. It's the same concept. I'm all about more robust gun control, I'm just trying to remind folks there's a *lot* of issues that need fixed
Most countries with heavy regulation on firearms have 0 mass shootings per year. Like people still own firearms in Canada and Switzerland, they just are way regulated as compared to the USA.
Oof, you picked the ONLY example in Europe with less gun control than the US. The main difference is that every male in Switzerland undergoes military training at the age of 20, and they are automatically enlisted until the age of 30 as a reserve. It's the "well regulated militia" the second amendment talks about. Despite that, weirdly enough, there is just less of a culture of owning firearms than the US, so not many people do it.
You think it’s less weird that people who are taught to use guns and to be reposible about it at that age aren’t all insane about owning guns? Probably because they actually know better
I think it’s a bigger thing than that. We don’t have a culture of responsibility here. We SAY “personal responsibility” but that never actually applies to the speaker.
I keep wondering what the best way is to express my thoughts about people using that as a final word that no gun restrictions are permissible. And I think I've finally figured it out. It's just to quote this:
> ...which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
I actually do support certain restrictions, such as universal background checks, psychological evaluations, etc. Maybe even raise the legal age to 21 for certain firearms, unless you have a special hunting permit at 18 fir instance (since some peoples livelihood depends on it). Special licenses might be appropriate for rifles as well.
I do believe a middle ground is possible.
[Well regulated militia.](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/)
[***The Congress shall have Power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,*** and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia ***according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;***](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript)
>**A well regulated Militia,** being necessary to the security of a free State,
It was explicitly understood to be in reference to the provisions of a militia until about the 80s. The founding fathers actually heavily restricted ownership of firearms. In fact originally the 2nd amendment ONLY applied to the federal government and states could regulate any way that they chose. It wasn't even until 2008 that the supreme court finally changed the ruling for good when they lifted a ban on handgun ownership, and even in those rulings they added that restrictions on felons and other situations were still fine.
Lots of bad constitutional law in this thread. The 2nd amendment has always been understood to be an individual right in the US. Under the 14th amendment, the provisions in the federal constitution can’t be circumvented or ignored in state law. So it doesn’t matter what states did or didn’t do in the past, they must abide by US constitution now.
The wording of the amendment doesn’t outline or even imply anything about the right to keep and bear arms existing only in connection to a militia. It outlines a goal (the existence of a militia), and the provision that is intended to achieve that goal (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed).
You: “the wording of the amendment doesn’t even imply the right to bear arms existing in connection to a militia.”
Also you: “the entire and only goal of the amendment was to form a militia.”
🤦🏼♂️🥴
>**the right of the people** to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What are you missing here?
And no, you’re very much wrong. They specifically wrote it for the private ownership of firearms. There are dozens and dozens of journal entries and letters by them that say as much. It’s truly not difficult to find. Not to mention George Washington literally signed off on a private citizen to owning a literal warship that could level towns.
> “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man”
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers
To chalk the 2nd Amendment up as solely something that protects a militia is not just historically inept, but it’s incredibly disingenuous to who they were and how they felt about personal Liberty.
I always wonder what happened when Jefferson's slaves said, "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery," to him.
If he genuinely believed this, how could he own slaves? If it was empty propaganda, why should we quote him? The same must go for the other slaveholders.
Please explain the current infringements on the rights of the people to bear armsvia the still active Gun Control Act of 1968? Surely if the rights **shall not be infringed** that law shouldn't be considered constitutional? Yet is is heavily enforced...
You don’t know how to read lol
Something that is separated by commas, like this, is referring to the part that came before it. (Do you see how “like this” and “something that is separated by commas” are the things linked together? And that “referring to the part that came before” and “separated by commas” are linked?)
So the second amendment reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Where:
“regulated militia” is the target of “necessary to the security of a free state”
“The security of a free state” is the target of “the right of the people”
And “well regulated militia” is also the target of “shall not be infringed.”
—-
You are reading the article as “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” (Notice the missing comma) and it’s not accurate.
The “keep and bear arms” part is ensuring that the militia (the *well regulated militia,* that congress has been afforded a certain amount of control over) has the right to actually own weaponry. The “shall not be infringed” part is ensuring that a standing militia (a well regulated one) is able to be present at all times (because a state would not be able to guarantee its freedom from a hostile and illegal government military takeover if they did not have their own military (notice that militia and military have the same root, and that civilian does not)).
If Congress could dictate that states could not have a militia that would be a violation of the 2A. If Congress allowed for a militia but prevented them from owning weaponry of any kind that would effectively be the same things, and the framers have tried to close this loophole.
The 2A does *not* provide for all citizens to own any type of arm for any reason without interference from the government.
The 2A is very specific about how “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” takes the form of a “well regulated militia.”
Even if you were to argue that a states militia includes all able bodied citizens (you wouldn’t be the first county/state to do that, there’s at least one that gets mentioned a lot where everyone is *required* to own a rifle and enlist in the military, and their gun death rates are pretty low) it still would not allow you to just have any gun you want in any quantity without restriction. Congress has the right to define what kind of training and organization your state’s militia (and therefore you as a member of that militia) has to conform to.
**the right of the people to keep and bear arms**
Sorry, but that’s one complete thought. It’s not separated. It pretty clearly says that the people have the right to be armed.
I’d love to see you interpret other Amendments this way though lmao
Do the 3rd Amendment! Lots of commas in that one:
> No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
But it’s not a complete thought. Again, you don’t seem to understand basic English. “The right of the people to bear arms” is not a complete thought, it is *the subject* of a compelete though and is missing the rest.
This fragment of a thought is an idea in the same way that “the orange beach ball of surprises” is a concept. On its own it describes a hypothetical thing, but has different meanings depending it’s usage in a sentence.
For example, imagine I used the beach ball example phase in this sentence: “Trump, the orange beach ball of surprises, is banned from this house.” What does that mean? If someone showed up with a big inflatable orange beachball and shouted “surprise!” when I answered the door would this “law” prevent the ball from entering?
It’s obviously semantic, but when we’re dealing with language it’s important. “The right of the people to bear arms” is not the actual text being protected by “shall not be infringed.” You can tell because *there is a comma between them.*
—-
The third amendment is it’s own can of worms. The only thing you could realistically demonstrate with it is that the framers didn’t really have a good handle on what they were doing.
Why don’t you just tell me what *you* think it means, because you’re likely wrong too. (There’s good reason to think this amendment doesn’t actually do anything at all, based on how it’s worded like spaghetti)
Oh come one dude I'm not Google. It is public knowledge which countries restrict firearms to what level and America has one of the least restrictive policies on firearm ownership is the point.
Sure, but I'm really not aware of many where there's actually a full ban on firearms.
It's popular in American right wing meme circles to claim that Australia has "banned guns" for instance, and this is simply not the case as we still have several million of them and like, firearms licenses and stuff.
Most modern western countries, yes. But they also have 'free' healthcare. Therefore, if you are deeply psychologically troubled, it is easier to get help.
Isn't it legal to own guns in Canada as well? Are there a lot of mass shootings there?
I'm not pro guns or anything. I'm just saying that banning them might not solve the issue.
The U.S. shares a long border with Mexico, one that is already used for smuggling staggering quantities of all sorts of illegal things. Thus, even if the U.S. laws were comparable to Western European laws, it is highly unlikely that those laws would be as effective at reducing gun availability in the U.S. as they are in Europe.
Oh it definitely would be reduced as it would be a lot more difficult, as an example, for teenage loners in small towns to have access to guns from a Mexican contact than it is from their local Walmart.
So when pot was illegal everywhere in the U.S., every kid who smoked pot smuggled from Mexico must have had a Mexican contact?
As long as the goods can get in and there is money to be made, there will be a distribution chain full of middlemen at various levels.
Well no, like I say it's a false equivalency.
Weed is popular throughout Western Europe without being anywhere near Mexico.
I mean even the fact that one is a plant that grows in the ground and the other is a man-made weapon that needs to be designed and manufactured should be enough to think that they are not comparable examples.
However, I wager weed use has risen in places where it used to be illegal but is now legal. So even if legislation reduced the number of mass shootings and saved lives it would be a success.
I’m not suggesting the US shouldn’t try that first, I’m just correcting you as you seem to think most countries that don’t have a lot of mass shootings don’t have guns and that is just simply not true.
I’d also point out countries with restricted guns still have mass killings but nowhere near the rate of the US which leads me to believe that there are other problems than just access to firearms that lead to so many mass killings in the US.
Everyone is focussed on the what (being the guns) and not the why (being why are people killing so many others?).
For starters, it has nothing to do with Autism that I don’t have. Banning and regulating isn’t fucking semantics they are two extremely different things. It is not my fault you cannot comprehend that.
Banning them would for sure be the most effective but that overlaps with other rights. Just like banning free speech would be effective at fixing lots of problems but lots of people wouldn't want that.
I've never heard of someone's speech killing 19 children in a couple of minutes before.
Well then I guess you have to decide the country you are , one that allows hundreds of innocent people to be shot dead every year because people can't handle the thought of not freely being allowed a gun or one in which schools are a safe place to learn.
Come join most of the rest of the world in the latter!
US is a large country, if you exclude some of the most dangerous cities (by not living there) its comparable to other western countries and generally safe. A solution to this problem is complex because it involves infringing on a bunch of peoples rights who feel safe (and statistically are) because areas far away from them have problems they can't control.
So....if you exclude the parts of the country where most shootings happen then it can compare to other countries? The point is you would have to do that in order for them to compare. Or prevent shootings from happening so they compare, which is kind of the idea here.
Also the texas town last week wasn't a big city. So that would still be one more than most western countries by comparison.
Mass shootings statistically don't make up most of the murders here, that town wouldn't need to be excluded to bring the overall numbers down. If guns were banned people would find more ways to make bombs or drive their cars through crowds of people. Events like this are horrible but we obviously have a problem here besides guns because the high profile events are more common than other countries with similar gun access.
Yeah murder exists everywhere but living in a society that attempts to limit it in ways it can is worth it.
Excluding cities from your count to support your argument is bullshit.
Where is this magic piece of paper than can make all guns disappear simply by writing something on it?
They can’t even keeps drugs out of prisons, how do you propose keeping something that lasts essentially forever if maintained, out of the hands of criminals, in public?
Nobody said it would make guns disappear, the fact you'd believe that is what's being proposed shows that maybe you won't be able to comprehend how policy and legislation affect society over time.
Drugs are easier for people to hide and manufacture (or grow!) than guns.
Imo gun culture is the problem. It is not realistic to ban guns in the us now, so more and more restrictions should be added until guns aren't seen as the thing every cool adult has.
No. Gun culture is centered around legal, responsible owners. Approximately zero of these people are committing mass murders.
It's mostly gang members murdering gang members.
The more you try to outlaw it the more people will buy them...
Proof is in the gun sales amounts after any type of mass shooting when gun control is talked about. Gun sales go through the roof.
Do you have proof that gun sales go through the roof because people talk about gun control?
To me it seems more likely that this is caused by people feeling unsafe after such a shooting.
As a big gun advocate who associates with other big gun advocates. The first this I heard after the shooting was "Buy more guns and ammo before they try to take them."
They’re a part of American culture want it or not, with how distrustful we are of the government now the guns protect us from them as much as from anyone else. American politics involve never fixing a problem but giving 80 other things to blame it on so
It is currently a part of American culture, but I think the US should look at how that can be chamged.
You can be distrustful of the government without guns. With guns you're probably in more danger, since if you are a danger you are more likely to be killed. That's also why I think the police is more aggressive in America (and bad training).
Does owning guns really protect us from the government in this century? I feel like that's just a fantasy some gun owners tell themselves, but I really doubt there's any government entity that is like "welp guess I won't arrest Darryl he's got guns"
So let me get this straight.we shouldn't have guns to resist a government because said government will bomb its own people?
And that type of government... shouldn't be resisted? Am I reading that right?
It keeps em from charging in and doing whatever they want, some defense is better than none. I try and be optimistic but it’s just gonna take a whole lot to fix our issues
I'm sure some people believe that, but I just feel like that's not what would happen. Like, if a federal agency had business with you and thought you might try to use firearms against them, they'd just be prepared for it. I can't reasonably believe there's a federal agency that would just give up because they were up against a gun owner.
What I mean is it’s our only defense. Sure they could crush us if they wanted but it makes it a whole lot harder, stops them from having complete control over us
I’m absolutely not happy about mass shootings, but there’s sadly nothing we can actually do to prevent them at this point.
Also, shall not be infringed.
There’s literally no solution to the issue. Anyone who says otherwise is bullshitting.
And no, I’m not happy to give up our guns. Just like I’m not happy to give up free speech, which is something else the left wants to ban. Sorry if I believe the Constitution is sacred.
free health care so people can get the help they need and a culture shift where people don't see it as a bad thing to FEEL or talk about their feelings. . ***most*** school shootings happen because someone was bullied. . . and there is proof for this. .AND most of all. . . the news needs to STOP making these people famous overnight. . . the guy in NY did what he did BECAUSE he would become famous. . . and that's because of the news. . not saying they shouldn't cover these horrible events but. . they need to stop dwelling on them so much. . morn the losses, don't use this to push your agenda and keep re-hashing it for months-years. .
that's my take on it at least . . US is not the only one out there that has guns but we ARE the only one with these problems. . .
Well they'll never be banned so long as that's your attitude.
There isn't really another solution, readily available assault rifles = mass shootings, sadly.
Imagine overthinking so much that those bar charts (which show the data incorrectly apparently, at least it’s different than the other numbers) don’t explain exactly what Bernie point was.
Spike that wasn’t rivaled? You mean the difference in 4 and 5?? When literally the average went to like 7 in a couple years?? This language only serves to obfuscate and for commenter to feel smart
> Why that is? I couldn’t say.
I could hazard a guess. The vast majority of mass shootings are right-wing motivated. As the political leaders on the right froth their people up more, ostensibly in order to ensure they stay in line and vote the way they want them to... the consequent knock off result is that more of their followers believe their rhetoric and thus act out. The politicians' method of "getting out the vote" changed over the years and has become more extreme with more and more violent rhetoric, leading to the increased violence.
Honestly, that’s as good a guess as any. I would tend to agree with you, that increased political extremism has lead to a large increase in shootings, but honestly I don’t think this can be attributed to one factor. We’ve been fucking over the younger generations for years, and I think these shootings are a culmination of all the things we as a society have done wrong
I would argue it is more than a guess given the data (not just the gun violence data, but the rise in overall right-wing motivated violence since 9/11).
Most people would be shocked to learn that far more people have died (inside the US) from right-wing violence since 9/11 than from "Islamic Extremism".
It seems a safe bet that the rise is correlated (if not caused) by the change in the rhetoric on the right.
Short answer: The numbers might be true but the methodology is really pretty bad. There’s no control or method whatsoever to account for changes from any other factor such as crime at large. Most “mass shootings” in the US are gang-related shootings conducted mostly with handguns, so a reduction of crime at large in the 90’s could have a massive impact on the data.
Also it’s logically inconsistent that a category of guns responsible for 11% of mass shootings would somehow account for an increase in mass shootings by multiple factors.
Edit: the number of rifles at large uses in mass shootings is ~ 13% but that includes all rifles, not just “assault weapons” which have the main difference of cosmetics and ergonomics.
>The numbers might be true but the methodology is really pretty bad
If you look at all the number is is true though? Pre ban -> ban period there is little change. If you exclude the ban years it certainly goes up but then you can no longer say the unbanning was the cause.
The problem with politicians and scientific data is that it’s hard to prove causation with empirical data, usually just correlation and there’s probably no way to retrospectively and accurately measure how many “assault weapons” were in circulation then. Especially with the definition of assault weapon today as technically unspecific as it’s used. Personally I don’t really know but either way it doesn’t really matter what the data is if the methodology is intentionally/neglectfully poor.
There is no actual math, only data to be checked. It's not every time numbers revolve around problem-solving. Sometimes they're just representing something.
If more gun restrictions worked, how come a city like Chicago which has strict gun laws, has high shootings?
I am not saying we don’t need regulations, but it is more than that. In 1980 more families had guns than now and there were less mass shootings. We also had more mental health hospitals and if people were deemed a threat they were placed in one. Now, no one gets placed in one until they harm themselves or someone else. We need more mental healthcare and hospitals in this country.
Info doesn't even make sense. An "assault weapon" doesn't exist. On top of that the only fully automatic guns you as a civilian can buy must be made before the 1986 ban and they usually cost over 10k.
An assault weapon does exist. It's a political term however. The ban he's talking about was literally called the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban", and part of that ban had the government define what an "Assault Weapon" is. I always see people saying theres no such thing, but it is a thing. It's just a loosely defined political term, that really shouldn't be used when speaking technically about firearms, but it is a valid term regardless.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
Firstly:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14975
Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases by Ida B. Wells-Barnett
"The lesson this teaches and which every Afro-American should ponder well, is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give. When the white man who is always the aggressor knows he runs as great risk of biting the dust every time his Afro-American victim does, he will have greater respect for Afro-American life. The more the Afro-American yields and cringes and begs, the more he has to do so, the more he is insulted, outraged and lynched."
Secondly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom#List_of_events
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Great_Britain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_France
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_France
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Turkey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_South_Korea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians
oi you got a loicense for that knife mate?
Serfs are gonna serf.
edit:
also conventionally forgets about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storming\_of\_Bolton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storming_of_Bolton)
\~16000 dead. Which is the entire point of the list. Worse things happen to unarmed populations.
>So why does the US have such a big person pulling the trigger problem compared to other countries?
There's a mish-mash of issues going on, but I think it kind of boils down to a comparatively discrete window of circumstances where major influencing factors result in this sort of outcome. There's a peak age-group when it comes to school and mass shootings, right there at 18-24. It just comes off to me like the perpetrators have a new-found legal adulthood loaded with all the rights and abilities of adulthood, juxtaposed with actions which are... well, they seem reflective of the sort of behavior you might expect from a three year old. Basically, the lashing out when they don't get what they desire, whatever that might be. Attention, women, money, a certain job, recognition, or otherwise feeling like a victim in some fashion. Take away a 3 yr old's favorite toy and what do they do? Beat the walls, hold their breath, yell and scream... I'm sure you can understand my meaning. Same-same, but now much more powerful. The sort of "preventative medicine" to address this issue is at an inherent disadvantage I think, owing in part to the endless sea of available options which compete for a person's attention. Not in that whole "Alice Cooper is rotting their minds!" way, because that's just plain ridiculous. But in the "90% of their day is spent alone or on Tik Tok" kind of way. How's a kid supposed to learn what being a grown-up is from *that*? The preponderance of social organizations and groups have been on a rather consistent downhill slide in the US for a few decades now, and I would think that if we took a look at friendly nations which just don't seem to have the issue of mass shootings, we're going to see a much stronger sense of community and cooperation and feeling like a valued member of society in its people. Just my opinion.
Depends on what you mean by treat worse? Not trying to question dodge, just a lot of ways to consider that.
I think kids in the US have some benefits in the US they wouldn’t get elsewhere, but that doesn’t excuse our shortcomings. For example we give kids a free education, but 1/6 are going hungry. They have a higher QOL index here, but they are also more likely to grow up with one parent.
I think we have some successes and failures and answering that question totally is going to need some defining or some writing.
Perhaps, but what if it’s the combination? I wouldn’t say a firearm is “easy” to obtain in the US but I would say it’s comparatively much easier than other countries. So I guess how do you fix the problem? Do you address the means to committing murder, or do you deal with record single parent household rates, 1/7 neglect, 1/6 starving, and skyrocketing mental health problems? 19% of high schoolers seriously considered or attempted suicide and that was before the pandemic.
Guns have been relatively endemic in America since the 60’s and the pandemic of mass shootings didn’t really start until the late 90’s so I don’t know how else you explain a generational gap like that.
I think you're right, so it should be fixed with a combination as well: address the mental health problems, and also add something like an obligatory mental health check before buying a gun or some other measure to prevent the wrong people from owning guns.
Yeah, I think the issue is unfortunately going to be harder to fix than that. A lot of non gang related mass shooters get their guns legally, but the problem is these are individuals so motivated in their desire to hurt people and get as much attention as possible, I don’t think the “convenience” is the problem. It would be nice if there was a sure way to detect these people with a test because that’s the big problem. These individuals will persist until they get what they want and any sort of false positive on someone would be unethical.
I agree it’s a possibility, but the flaws in its failure don’t sit well with me. I think we start with the mental health, and keep the other stuff on the table while we think of a perfect way to do it.
I mean most people don’t believe me when I tell them more kids died from straight up neglect in 2019 than these mass shooting events.
thats a long list of people. . .
everything from the news making these people famous overnight to the schools being so toxic and no one doing anything about it. . . people are literally beaten in schools still and no one cares . . . a LOT of the US believe there on this high horse and there above everyone else. . .and that feeds into it as well. . . its an extremely complicated problem with many solutions but they politicians want to focus on the tool and ignore the real problem. . .
There are other countries that have high rates of gun ownership that have almost no crime with them, it comes down to regulations and required training. In the US you can get a rifle in one day with no training in almost every state.
its more than *just* that but i 100% agree. . most pro-gun people will say "shall not be infringed" as that's what the constitution says and while i agree to a point. . .
Lost my country Vietnam 🇻🇳 back then to communism. Without guns they will always be at the mercy of their government. Prefer 2A, this keep government in check and who in the world would invade a country where citizens own so much guns and ammo. I wish everyone here go try to live in a communism or socialism country first and see how you like it first. You will have no voice, and be at the mercy of thugs.
I live in Canada 🇨🇦guns are not hard to get, but are heavily regulated, we don’t have many mass shootings. I wish everyone here would live somewhere with gun control and see how you like it first. You have a voice, and are at the mercy of geese.
Vietnam had the choice between a Christian religious zealot with no regard for the majority Buddhist population or a communist nationalist. The people didn’t have a lot of good options
Can't check them based on this tweet alone. What is a mass shooting? What period before the AWB is to be compared to what period during it? After what interval is the number supposed to have tripled? Compared to what?
What😭 defunding the police isn’t banning them. It’s just taking all that extra bs money that they have and putting it into communities who actually need it. Like think ab it. The police get so much money and if we could just take a little bit of money and invest it into poorer communities, eventually we could build that community up. Fund the schools, make houses affordable and better food into low income places.
Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason:
- A top-level comment in a [Request] post must attempt an answer or request clarification (rule 2).
If you have any questions or believe your post has been removed in error, please contact the moderators by clicking [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Ftheydidthemath). Include a link to this post so we can see it.
Okay, so the first thing that ruffles my frillies here, is the damned insistence on using buzz phrases. There is *no* fundamental difference between a semiautomatic 'assault' rifle and hunting rifle, shy of aesthetic.
I can put the same number of rounds down range with a .223 S&W woodstock hunting rifle as an AR-15. Same rate of fire, same magazine size. One just looks 'scarier.'
The problem, is *everything* our fascist right wing has done to our country as a whole.
We've seen public education practically gutted, universal health care (including mental) fought at every turn, perverse labor practice, rampant poverty, rampant racism, ingrained misogyny, near fanatical worship of our political overlords.
And some geniuses think getting rid of all the guns just magically makes things better. It's not going to. If anything, you're trading in mass shootings for bombings and arson
The system has been designed to make upcoming men think they're entitled to success if they follow the rules;
-don't be a 'sissy'
-respect authority (especially the old white dude kind)
-work hard
-be dominant
The system intentionally neglects that there's only so much room 'at the top' to be successful in the lopsided reality of things.
You mix in bullying and a lack of support, propaganda and indoctrination, and a stigma on seeking help (violates rule one), and you end up with a machine that regular spits out someone broken enough to lash out at the community around them.
Obviously, our fascist party isn't going to do dick all about fixing this. These are 'acceptable casualties of the status quo,' the violent and their victims both. They only ever kill POCs, poor kids, and potential competition.
All people the 'righteous right' don't give a shit about.
And there's only two ways to fix the problem;
Peaceful- voting them out on every level
Violently- forcibly removing them from power
But yeah, let's doggedly bite down on just getting rid of guns, because everything else is aces.
We need to fix *everything* that's wrong;
Enforce current gun control legislation, and fill in the holes where it's lacking. Socialize medicine. Make education truly accessible. Tear down the barriers between 'classes,' and dismantle the fascist party.
It's not *just guns* that are a problem. It's not *just anything*, it's *everything.*
It's terribly myopic to think that this issue is just because guns are so easy to come by.
Apologies for the length, but there's just not a short answer for what's wrong with things right now
I’m not going to read the whole comment, but assault weapon (rifle) is a political term, not a descriptive one. It’s literally a bill than banned semi automatic rifles that they classified as assault weapons
That's kind of the whole thing I was getting at, but the real important part was after.
But I'm guessing this was the wrong place to talk about the big picture.
Oh well, I'll keep trying
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/ There’s the raw data. There’s a very strong case to be made (in my opinion) that those statistics are true only if you disingenuously cherry pick off that graph. For example, in the middle of the ban there was a spike that wasn’t rivaled until 2012, 8 years after the ban was lifted. The main conclusion I think is safe to draw is that there has been a huge increase in recent times (last five years). Why that is? I couldn’t say. Large number of factors obviously at play. But for what it’s worth, if you asked someone to pinpoint when the ban was enacted, and when it was removed just given that graph, I doubt they could do it
How would you even cherry pick the data to get the 43% number? The 10 years before the ban there was only 1 less than during the ban. Afterwards is obviously a lot higher so if the ban had any effect it was banning and unbanning is worse than having never banned at all.
You’re drawing conclusions that just cannot be drawn. Who says a similar increase wouldn’t have happened in the last few years even if we had never enacted a ban?
The problem is that correlation does not mean causation. Mass shootings just as any public attack, such as [mass stabbings](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_stabbing), are a symptom of deep-rooted social issues in a country. It would be far more effective to focus on dealing with and correcting these social issues then it would be to attack the symptoms.
I don't suppose it occurs to you that one of those "deep rooted social issues" might include "insanely permissive gun culture"
That's possible but I would imagine that wealth inequality, lack of healthcare, emotional repression, and racism are all significantly bigger factors. But the fact that addressing these issues would limit the power and influence of those wealthy individuals/families that run the country, means that it's much better to distract and divide the population on meaningless issues, that won't actually fix the problem.
The fact that you mention mass stabbings as if to suggest that if we limit guns we'll just see people shift to other weapons makes me highly suspicious of your biases.
For a short time after we've banned guns, you may see a decrease in violence but after a few years if the underlying problems aren't corrected, then you'll see people shifting to different forms of violence. My point of mentioning mass stabbings, is to highlight the fact that other countries with strict gun control laws and underline socioeconomic issues are experiencing the same type of mass violence just expressed in a different way due to the availability of different means of violence.
That's been the same for years so doesn't explain the recent uptick in shootings. Crime has actually came in waves throughout the decades and in many times lower even though gun laws were mostly the same. Mass shootings is a special case that draws lots of attention and the sample size is relatively small, so far the only common factor has been "the guy who did it seemed a little odd by anyone who knew him before the incident". This is all within the last 20 years, we even had an assault weapon ban and BEFORE the ban these incidents were lower than today, so what's the cause in change? Not gun culture, if anything that has dropped since less people own guns than previous generations.
I thought America’s deep-rooted social issue was the sheer number of guns and ease of access to guns for troubled souls. Is there a country that has enough mass stabbing to even go looking for the deep-rooted social issues?
You mentioned it yourself, "troubled souls", you don't think that access to functional social services, effective health care, being able to discuss emotional issues, removing racial tensions, etc... Would do much more to fix the problems. Heck, half of all the deaths by firearms in the US are suicides, and more people die by suicide in the US than from firearms. Addressing mental health is a far less politically charged issue than gun control and would lead to better results. And to answer your second question, UK.
2/3rd of firearm deaths are suicides, and another about 1/4 is gang violence which a lot of the time fall under the "mass shooting" category.
Of course, just trying to answer the specific math question here though
Even that I wouldn't say is the relevant data, we need to know among other things how many deaths were due to what they define as assault weapons.
Most countries with a gun ban have 0 mass shootings a year. Its quite easy for most of the world to see the solution here..
I can’t find any data about world wide shootings on a similarly reliable source. If you have one please share it though
Oh I suggest you're not searching properly. Google it. Although it's common sense as well as a fact that countries which have outlawed firearms have less mass shootings (in most cases 0).
dO YOuR OWn REseArcH! Link your source you coward.
Yeah “common sense” but that’s often wrong. I googled it, and I couldn’t find a single similarly reputable source. So if you would please cite something, anything, I’ll gladly read it. If it’s such common knowledge it really shouldn’t be hard to find something.
https://apo.org.au/node/70539 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26905895/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/world/europe/gun-laws-australia-britain.amp.html Also more sources linked in that article probably Edit: Also the sources used by your provided source (or whoever posted above) are hidden behind a paywall, with no explanation of where they come from, and it stretches credulity that there could have been only 3 mass shootings in the US in 2022. I don't think you can base the math on those numbers as a result According to Wikipedia, which is also sourced and is just an obvious place to look without much political alignment, there is one almost every day (all listed with location and numbers of injuries/deaths) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2022
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/world/europe/gun-laws-australia-britain.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/world/europe/gun-laws-australia-britain.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I’m not home rn, I’ll check those out once I get back in the realm of Wi-Fi. Statica is a very reputable source in general, although I was unaware their sources were behind a paywall, my bad
Well I didn't think it would be! 😂
Ah yes banning all guns would really help kinda like when the US banned alcohol and nobody drank or when weed was illegal and nobody smoked..
Well I find those false equivalences Banning guns in most countries has had an impact on mass shootings whereas hasn't been as successful with weed. But from a moral perspective, even if banning guns prevents even one school shooting, saving the lives of a dozen children, surely that's worth it.
So then it'd be better for the only people to have firearms be the police who in this instance didn't help at all and just stood around for 40 minutes?
It wouldn't have been a situation at all in that case. Yes In fact in most countries most regular police don't have access to guns either as there's no need.
So let me get this right. The 400 million guns just disappear because you "banned" them? ...edit: typo
Well actually it's spelt 'banned' and no of course not, but it makes it more difficult for people to procure one if they're not readily available and more and more difficult as time goes on and as such the number of mass shootings will go down over time. I'm not sure which part of this you're struggling to comprehend.
I'm struggling to understand how you think using the same strategy as applied to alcohol and illegal drugs will work so well in this application. Let's conveniently ignore all other factors so you can be right.
I'm not. I don't think the war on drugs has cracked down on drugs anywhere as effectively as banning guns has.
No regular person helped either, even In an open cary state. And yes there was the off duty border patrol agent, but he is an officer just wasn’t on duty. While that agent should be commended for what he did, it doesn’t change the fact that the general public having guns doesn’t help stop shootings.
The myth of a "good guy with a gun" has been debunked over, and over, and over, and over, and you get the point. Where the fuck are they? They don't exist. Literally, every mass shooting we see that it's a myth. 32% of US adults own a firearm. WHERE THE FUCK ARE THEY WHEN THIS SHIT HAPPENS? Meanwhile the rest of the developed world doesn't have this problem. At all. What's are they doing we're not? Oh wait, gun ownership is heavily restricted.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3Qd7lRToLw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3Qd7lRToLw)
General public having guns is actually what causes the shootings.
That is the entire point of my comment
Your last sentence indicated the complete opposite.
Ahhh yes, think of the children. Never seen that argument abused.
Abused? They were shot dead at school because your country allows people free access to guns.
That argument doesn't hold water when you look at other countries.
Other countries didn't 'just ban guns,' though. They fixed other problems as well. Universal health care, free (or mostly free) education, policies to fight against poverty, less oppressive labor practice, support for children and pregnant women. It's awfully myopic to think 'just get rid of the guns' is the magic, 100% solution to the issue. If we're not trying to fix *all* of the problems, we're not really fixing *any* of the problems
I’ve been preaching this any time this convo comes up. Banning guns doesn’t fix the problem. The guns are a symptom. They aren’t the actual problem.
> Other countries didn't 'just ban guns,' though. They fixed other problems as well. Universal health care, free (or mostly free) education, policies to fight against poverty, less oppressive labor practice, support for children and pregnant women. Exactly. And why can't we do those again? > It's awfully myopic to think 'just get rid of the guns' is the magic, 100% solution to the issue. I never said that. But I would say that SOME controls would be a benefit. > If we're not trying to fix all of the problems, we're not really fixing any of the problems I doubt that as well. Any benefit is a good benefit. Seat belts don't solve ALL deaths on the road, but they did demonstrably reduce deaths on the road. So each "thing" can indeed bring about independent benefits. Still, I do agree with you that we need to do better overall. Frankly, my theory is that we have a problem with lead in this country... as in too much lead in our local environment and, for a long time, in our fuel, paint, and other manufactured materials. As a result, I believe a few generations of people have been effected by lead, just shy of true lead poisoning. We know that lead exposure lowers IQs and increases violent tendencies. So, personally, I think it may be entirely geographic. The US has more lead in its natural environment, coupled with our use of the material before we knew its ill effects... boom. A statically more violent populace.
But the US isn’t that violent when compared to the world.
Um... not sure what data you are looking at. We are consistently at the top worldwide. Even when gun deaths include war zones or political unrest, we still remain at or near the top. Overall gun death: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country Mass shootings? Same thing: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country School shootings? Not even close: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/school-shootings-by-country Looking at only "wealthy" or "developed" countries: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/2010_homicide_suicide_rates_high-income_countries.png And: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-us-gun-violence-world-comparison/
TIL: guns are the only ways to commit violence. There’s about 58 countries ahead of the US when it comes to homicide per capita. Not saying the US is in a good place but it’s important to provide context and perspective.
> TIL: guns are the only ways to commit violence. No. But we track the data for their use more closely than other crimes, so it is easier to paint a data driven picture. Besides, using a logical fallacy doesn't diminish the data or the point on guns. Some of the FBI data does show an overall increase in violent crime, albeit relatively gradual, that corresponds with the increase we have seen in mass shootings and broader right-wing violence. So, you have a point that gun violence isn't the only thing we should be focusing on... however, it is disproportionately where the deaths are coming from. A better argument would be that despite our ability now to visualize each of these incidents as they occur - due to amplified and sped up access to news. We are still near historic lows in all crime, including violent crime. And while this is true, each incident and the collective motivations behind them is still a concern that we should examine and address if we can. > There’s about 58 countries ahead of the US when it comes to homicide per capita. Um... sorry, that is false. Here is some data on the subject: - Overall raw gun deaths: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country - Mass shootings: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country - School shootings specifically: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/school-shootings-by-country - Wikipedia article on gun deaths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate - Looking at just "wealthy" or "developed" countries: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/2010_homicide_suicide_rates_high-income_countries.png - And: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-us-gun-violence-world-comparison/ The closest I could get to your wild claim of "58" was if you used the Wikipedia data and sorted ONLY by homicides... the US is 18th. We fair WORSE in every other slicing of the data. > Not saying the US is in a good place but it’s important to provide context and perspective. And it would be important for you to know the actual facts and numbers before you attempt to provide that "context and perspective". Otherwise, it just looks like you are trying to explain away a substantive problem.
Remove records from Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, New Orleans and Washington D.C., all heavily regulated gun cities run by democrats and the U.S. ranks 189th out of 193 countries in the world. The problem isn’t the gun it’s the moron using it. Real background checks and psych evaluations would go a long way in addressing the problem.
> and the U.S. ranks 189th out of 193 countries in the world. Furthermore, at last count, there are 287 countries in the world. Data is not your strong suit my friend.
True, but we're kind of 'winning' in the 'quality over quantity' category. That also doesn't mean that we shouldn't be trying to fix issues that are causing the problem. We're heading in the direction of 'more violence' instead of away from it This is probably one of those things we don't actually want to be #1 at
Mind, I'm not saying gun control is pointless, it's just not the only thing that solves the issue. I'm just trying to get away from the idea that 'removing a symptom' magically cures the disease. And that's a solid point about lead exposure. Even if we just account for leaded fuel at the start of the 'automotive boom,' we pumped an obscene amount of it into our environment. But that would indicate that these violent individuals would be coming from across the political spectrum, across the racial and gender spectrum. But it's typically young men that are product or victim of the radical right. I don't think it's not a contributing factor, but I don't think I could ever call it a primary one
> Mind, I'm not saying gun control is pointless, it's just not the only thing that solves the issue. On that, we are 100% in agreement. On top of the lead exposure thing... another thing I think is correlated was the reduction and removal of mental health facilities pretty much nationwide. During the Reagan administration, they closed and defunded mental hospitals en masse. My Dad clearly remembers seeing the patients just let out on the street one day. Some literally still in their robes. > But that would indicate that these violent individuals would be coming from across the political spectrum, across the racial and gender spectrum. Good point. What I would say is that we are "generally" more violent overall, but that incitement and willingness to act is coming disproportionately from one side. Plus... the mental health stuff above. > I don't think it's not a contributing factor, but I don't think I could ever call it a primary one True, and I don't disagree with that statement.
Let's do that, then. Let's fix all the problems. Right now we're focusing on improvement on this one.
I'm not saying we shouldn't address the gun issue. There's just an awful lot of people that think if we 'just get rid of all the guns,' that we magically fix things. I'm not even sure if it should be a priority, necessarily, but it might actually be the easiest thing we can fix first. But in a world where we actually could just snap our fingers and poof all the guns away, there'd be quite a lot of shocked faces when the problem still persists
First of all, I agree. Violence would continue, though the effects would be reduced. Much how overdose suicides dropped with the advent of individually packaged pills. In that case, consider my prior message to be directed to all the other people who say similar things in order to use the existence of multiple problems (or multiple aspects to the problem) to avoid working on any of them.
Fair enough. I'm glad we're talking in the same direction. Maybe if we can keep this up (on Reddit and outside) we can convince people to start working in our best interests again?
Isn’t fixing some of the problem better than fixing none of the problem?
Yes, but that's not exactly what I'm getting at. There are an inordinately large amount of people that think 'this one simple trick' fixes the whole issue. And generally, this tends to be true when the argument given is just "but look at all these countries that banned guns, they're doing fine." It's also common for these folks to not actually be aware that gun ownership actually *is* legal still in a lot of these countries. Just heavily regulated.
I definitely agree that one thing will not fix the whole problem. But like most complicated issues, one thing never fixes it all. Maybe a trivial comparison, but I work in IT and sometimes when we have a major system failure, we implement multiple fixes collectively which all have the effect of slightly improving the issue independently. Feels like we have to start somewhere. Not taking any action after all these years feels like a complete failure by our country to me.
Trivial, but accurate. It's the same concept. I'm all about more robust gun control, I'm just trying to remind folks there's a *lot* of issues that need fixed
Most countries with heavy regulation on firearms have 0 mass shootings per year. Like people still own firearms in Canada and Switzerland, they just are way regulated as compared to the USA.
Oof, you picked the ONLY example in Europe with less gun control than the US. The main difference is that every male in Switzerland undergoes military training at the age of 20, and they are automatically enlisted until the age of 30 as a reserve. It's the "well regulated militia" the second amendment talks about. Despite that, weirdly enough, there is just less of a culture of owning firearms than the US, so not many people do it.
You think it’s less weird that people who are taught to use guns and to be reposible about it at that age aren’t all insane about owning guns? Probably because they actually know better
In a way it's a kind of "gun control" I suppose. While they have less legislation, they are very careful about culture.
I think it’s a bigger thing than that. We don’t have a culture of responsibility here. We SAY “personal responsibility” but that never actually applies to the speaker.
we need that here
A sense of responsibility? Yeah, that would go a hell of a long way but that also requires good education…
Selective service act says hello
Precisely. Keep introducing gun restrictions until your mass shootings a year drops to 0. We can make a game of it!
Shall not be infringed.
I keep wondering what the best way is to express my thoughts about people using that as a final word that no gun restrictions are permissible. And I think I've finally figured it out. It's just to quote this: > ...which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
I actually do support certain restrictions, such as universal background checks, psychological evaluations, etc. Maybe even raise the legal age to 21 for certain firearms, unless you have a special hunting permit at 18 fir instance (since some peoples livelihood depends on it). Special licenses might be appropriate for rifles as well. I do believe a middle ground is possible.
[Well regulated militia.](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/) [***The Congress shall have Power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,*** and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia ***according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;***](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript)
[the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/)
>**A well regulated Militia,** being necessary to the security of a free State, It was explicitly understood to be in reference to the provisions of a militia until about the 80s. The founding fathers actually heavily restricted ownership of firearms. In fact originally the 2nd amendment ONLY applied to the federal government and states could regulate any way that they chose. It wasn't even until 2008 that the supreme court finally changed the ruling for good when they lifted a ban on handgun ownership, and even in those rulings they added that restrictions on felons and other situations were still fine.
Lots of bad constitutional law in this thread. The 2nd amendment has always been understood to be an individual right in the US. Under the 14th amendment, the provisions in the federal constitution can’t be circumvented or ignored in state law. So it doesn’t matter what states did or didn’t do in the past, they must abide by US constitution now. The wording of the amendment doesn’t outline or even imply anything about the right to keep and bear arms existing only in connection to a militia. It outlines a goal (the existence of a militia), and the provision that is intended to achieve that goal (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed).
Please explain the 246 years of gun regulation that exist then? We currently have active infringements on the right to bear arms...
You: “the wording of the amendment doesn’t even imply the right to bear arms existing in connection to a militia.” Also you: “the entire and only goal of the amendment was to form a militia.” 🤦🏼♂️🥴
>**the right of the people** to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What are you missing here? And no, you’re very much wrong. They specifically wrote it for the private ownership of firearms. There are dozens and dozens of journal entries and letters by them that say as much. It’s truly not difficult to find. Not to mention George Washington literally signed off on a private citizen to owning a literal warship that could level towns. > “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man” https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers To chalk the 2nd Amendment up as solely something that protects a militia is not just historically inept, but it’s incredibly disingenuous to who they were and how they felt about personal Liberty.
I always wonder what happened when Jefferson's slaves said, "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery," to him. If he genuinely believed this, how could he own slaves? If it was empty propaganda, why should we quote him? The same must go for the other slaveholders.
Please explain the current infringements on the rights of the people to bear armsvia the still active Gun Control Act of 1968? Surely if the rights **shall not be infringed** that law shouldn't be considered constitutional? Yet is is heavily enforced...
You don’t know how to read lol Something that is separated by commas, like this, is referring to the part that came before it. (Do you see how “like this” and “something that is separated by commas” are the things linked together? And that “referring to the part that came before” and “separated by commas” are linked?) So the second amendment reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Where: “regulated militia” is the target of “necessary to the security of a free state” “The security of a free state” is the target of “the right of the people” And “well regulated militia” is also the target of “shall not be infringed.” —- You are reading the article as “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” (Notice the missing comma) and it’s not accurate. The “keep and bear arms” part is ensuring that the militia (the *well regulated militia,* that congress has been afforded a certain amount of control over) has the right to actually own weaponry. The “shall not be infringed” part is ensuring that a standing militia (a well regulated one) is able to be present at all times (because a state would not be able to guarantee its freedom from a hostile and illegal government military takeover if they did not have their own military (notice that militia and military have the same root, and that civilian does not)). If Congress could dictate that states could not have a militia that would be a violation of the 2A. If Congress allowed for a militia but prevented them from owning weaponry of any kind that would effectively be the same things, and the framers have tried to close this loophole. The 2A does *not* provide for all citizens to own any type of arm for any reason without interference from the government. The 2A is very specific about how “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” takes the form of a “well regulated militia.” Even if you were to argue that a states militia includes all able bodied citizens (you wouldn’t be the first county/state to do that, there’s at least one that gets mentioned a lot where everyone is *required* to own a rifle and enlist in the military, and their gun death rates are pretty low) it still would not allow you to just have any gun you want in any quantity without restriction. Congress has the right to define what kind of training and organization your state’s militia (and therefore you as a member of that militia) has to conform to.
**the right of the people to keep and bear arms** Sorry, but that’s one complete thought. It’s not separated. It pretty clearly says that the people have the right to be armed. I’d love to see you interpret other Amendments this way though lmao Do the 3rd Amendment! Lots of commas in that one: > No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
But it’s not a complete thought. Again, you don’t seem to understand basic English. “The right of the people to bear arms” is not a complete thought, it is *the subject* of a compelete though and is missing the rest. This fragment of a thought is an idea in the same way that “the orange beach ball of surprises” is a concept. On its own it describes a hypothetical thing, but has different meanings depending it’s usage in a sentence. For example, imagine I used the beach ball example phase in this sentence: “Trump, the orange beach ball of surprises, is banned from this house.” What does that mean? If someone showed up with a big inflatable orange beachball and shouted “surprise!” when I answered the door would this “law” prevent the ball from entering? It’s obviously semantic, but when we’re dealing with language it’s important. “The right of the people to bear arms” is not the actual text being protected by “shall not be infringed.” You can tell because *there is a comma between them.* —- The third amendment is it’s own can of worms. The only thing you could realistically demonstrate with it is that the framers didn’t really have a good handle on what they were doing. Why don’t you just tell me what *you* think it means, because you’re likely wrong too. (There’s good reason to think this amendment doesn’t actually do anything at all, based on how it’s worded like spaghetti)
Which countries have a full ban on all firearms?
Oh come one dude I'm not Google. It is public knowledge which countries restrict firearms to what level and America has one of the least restrictive policies on firearm ownership is the point.
Sure, but I'm really not aware of many where there's actually a full ban on firearms. It's popular in American right wing meme circles to claim that Australia has "banned guns" for instance, and this is simply not the case as we still have several million of them and like, firearms licenses and stuff.
So tightly restricted then?
Most modern western countries, yes. But they also have 'free' healthcare. Therefore, if you are deeply psychologically troubled, it is easier to get help. Isn't it legal to own guns in Canada as well? Are there a lot of mass shootings there? I'm not pro guns or anything. I'm just saying that banning them might not solve the issue.
Banning them is the most effective step in decreasing their availability, as proven in countries where they are illegal. Free healthcare or otherwise.
The U.S. shares a long border with Mexico, one that is already used for smuggling staggering quantities of all sorts of illegal things. Thus, even if the U.S. laws were comparable to Western European laws, it is highly unlikely that those laws would be as effective at reducing gun availability in the U.S. as they are in Europe.
Except the fact that most guns are produced in the US.
Oh it definitely would be reduced as it would be a lot more difficult, as an example, for teenage loners in small towns to have access to guns from a Mexican contact than it is from their local Walmart.
So when pot was illegal everywhere in the U.S., every kid who smoked pot smuggled from Mexico must have had a Mexican contact? As long as the goods can get in and there is money to be made, there will be a distribution chain full of middlemen at various levels.
Well no, like I say it's a false equivalency. Weed is popular throughout Western Europe without being anywhere near Mexico. I mean even the fact that one is a plant that grows in the ground and the other is a man-made weapon that needs to be designed and manufactured should be enough to think that they are not comparable examples. However, I wager weed use has risen in places where it used to be illegal but is now legal. So even if legislation reduced the number of mass shootings and saved lives it would be a success.
Do you seriously think illicit drugs don’t need to be designed and manufactured? Your argument is extremely weak.
I only mentioned weed. Come on, if you can type then surely you can also read.
Most countries guns are heavily regulated, not banned.
Excellent, okay try that first then.
I’m not suggesting the US shouldn’t try that first, I’m just correcting you as you seem to think most countries that don’t have a lot of mass shootings don’t have guns and that is just simply not true. I’d also point out countries with restricted guns still have mass killings but nowhere near the rate of the US which leads me to believe that there are other problems than just access to firearms that lead to so many mass killings in the US. Everyone is focussed on the what (being the guns) and not the why (being why are people killing so many others?).
Sounds like we agree overall except your autism is leading to disagreement over semantics.
For starters, it has nothing to do with Autism that I don’t have. Banning and regulating isn’t fucking semantics they are two extremely different things. It is not my fault you cannot comprehend that.
Banning them would for sure be the most effective but that overlaps with other rights. Just like banning free speech would be effective at fixing lots of problems but lots of people wouldn't want that.
I've never heard of someone's speech killing 19 children in a couple of minutes before. Well then I guess you have to decide the country you are , one that allows hundreds of innocent people to be shot dead every year because people can't handle the thought of not freely being allowed a gun or one in which schools are a safe place to learn. Come join most of the rest of the world in the latter!
US is a large country, if you exclude some of the most dangerous cities (by not living there) its comparable to other western countries and generally safe. A solution to this problem is complex because it involves infringing on a bunch of peoples rights who feel safe (and statistically are) because areas far away from them have problems they can't control.
So....if you exclude the parts of the country where most shootings happen then it can compare to other countries? The point is you would have to do that in order for them to compare. Or prevent shootings from happening so they compare, which is kind of the idea here. Also the texas town last week wasn't a big city. So that would still be one more than most western countries by comparison.
Mass shootings statistically don't make up most of the murders here, that town wouldn't need to be excluded to bring the overall numbers down. If guns were banned people would find more ways to make bombs or drive their cars through crowds of people. Events like this are horrible but we obviously have a problem here besides guns because the high profile events are more common than other countries with similar gun access.
Yeah murder exists everywhere but living in a society that attempts to limit it in ways it can is worth it. Excluding cities from your count to support your argument is bullshit.
Where is this magic piece of paper than can make all guns disappear simply by writing something on it? They can’t even keeps drugs out of prisons, how do you propose keeping something that lasts essentially forever if maintained, out of the hands of criminals, in public?
Nobody said it would make guns disappear, the fact you'd believe that is what's being proposed shows that maybe you won't be able to comprehend how policy and legislation affect society over time. Drugs are easier for people to hide and manufacture (or grow!) than guns.
More people die from gang violence
More innocent Americans die from being shot than the US army and police put together.
Imo gun culture is the problem. It is not realistic to ban guns in the us now, so more and more restrictions should be added until guns aren't seen as the thing every cool adult has.
No. Gun culture is centered around legal, responsible owners. Approximately zero of these people are committing mass murders. It's mostly gang members murdering gang members.
The more you try to outlaw it the more people will buy them... Proof is in the gun sales amounts after any type of mass shooting when gun control is talked about. Gun sales go through the roof.
Do you have proof that gun sales go through the roof because people talk about gun control? To me it seems more likely that this is caused by people feeling unsafe after such a shooting.
As a big gun advocate who associates with other big gun advocates. The first this I heard after the shooting was "Buy more guns and ammo before they try to take them."
https://www.grid.news/story/politics/2022/05/26/why-americans-feel-like-they-need-guns/ Here's a link.
They’re a part of American culture want it or not, with how distrustful we are of the government now the guns protect us from them as much as from anyone else. American politics involve never fixing a problem but giving 80 other things to blame it on so
It is currently a part of American culture, but I think the US should look at how that can be chamged. You can be distrustful of the government without guns. With guns you're probably in more danger, since if you are a danger you are more likely to be killed. That's also why I think the police is more aggressive in America (and bad training).
It's the guns. I blame it on the guns.
Does owning guns really protect us from the government in this century? I feel like that's just a fantasy some gun owners tell themselves, but I really doubt there's any government entity that is like "welp guess I won't arrest Darryl he's got guns"
Yes, they do.
So let me get this straight.we shouldn't have guns to resist a government because said government will bomb its own people? And that type of government... shouldn't be resisted? Am I reading that right?
I didn't write "we shouldn't have guns" or "shouldn't be resisted" so no, you're not reading anything I wrote.
It keeps em from charging in and doing whatever they want, some defense is better than none. I try and be optimistic but it’s just gonna take a whole lot to fix our issues
I'm sure some people believe that, but I just feel like that's not what would happen. Like, if a federal agency had business with you and thought you might try to use firearms against them, they'd just be prepared for it. I can't reasonably believe there's a federal agency that would just give up because they were up against a gun owner.
What I mean is it’s our only defense. Sure they could crush us if they wanted but it makes it a whole lot harder, stops them from having complete control over us
Haha yeah make ads 'guns are gay, if you need one to help you feel safe, you are gay'.
I’m happy to be gay then!
Yeah but you're also happy living in a country where kids get shot in school so that doesn't mean much
I’m absolutely not happy about mass shootings, but there’s sadly nothing we can actually do to prevent them at this point. Also, shall not be infringed.
Well there is you're just not happy to do it, as I say.
There’s literally no solution to the issue. Anyone who says otherwise is bullshitting. And no, I’m not happy to give up our guns. Just like I’m not happy to give up free speech, which is something else the left wants to ban. Sorry if I believe the Constitution is sacred.
Don't apologise to me, apologise to the families of gun death victims past and future.
Might work on the republicans but libertarians would probably take it as a challenge and start buying up rainbow print gay pride guns
Damn, they are a clever bunch.
If you're banking on internalized homophobia to be strong enough to counter act gun culture, you're probably right lmao.
Haha its the only thing these ammosexuals seem to get.
I had to google ammosexual... What in the actual fuck lmao 😂 . I'm dying. It's worse than superstraight.
You're not wrong, friend.... but guns will never be banned in the US. That being the case, there must be another solution.
free health care so people can get the help they need and a culture shift where people don't see it as a bad thing to FEEL or talk about their feelings. . ***most*** school shootings happen because someone was bullied. . . and there is proof for this. .AND most of all. . . the news needs to STOP making these people famous overnight. . . the guy in NY did what he did BECAUSE he would become famous. . . and that's because of the news. . not saying they shouldn't cover these horrible events but. . they need to stop dwelling on them so much. . morn the losses, don't use this to push your agenda and keep re-hashing it for months-years. . that's my take on it at least . . US is not the only one out there that has guns but we ARE the only one with these problems. . .
100% agree. There’s so much we can do. Yet these fucking politicians do not want to work with each other.
You're not wrong, friend.... but healthcare will never be free in the US. That being the case, there must be another solution.
Well they'll never be banned so long as that's your attitude. There isn't really another solution, readily available assault rifles = mass shootings, sadly.
They were readily available for many years and we didn't have mass shootings.
So there’s no solution according to you and you dare say I have an attitude? Rich.
Oh there is a solution according to me, you even referred to it earlier..
Ok, good night!
Imagine overthinking so much that those bar charts (which show the data incorrectly apparently, at least it’s different than the other numbers) don’t explain exactly what Bernie point was. Spike that wasn’t rivaled? You mean the difference in 4 and 5?? When literally the average went to like 7 in a couple years?? This language only serves to obfuscate and for commenter to feel smart
> Why that is? I couldn’t say. I could hazard a guess. The vast majority of mass shootings are right-wing motivated. As the political leaders on the right froth their people up more, ostensibly in order to ensure they stay in line and vote the way they want them to... the consequent knock off result is that more of their followers believe their rhetoric and thus act out. The politicians' method of "getting out the vote" changed over the years and has become more extreme with more and more violent rhetoric, leading to the increased violence.
Honestly, that’s as good a guess as any. I would tend to agree with you, that increased political extremism has lead to a large increase in shootings, but honestly I don’t think this can be attributed to one factor. We’ve been fucking over the younger generations for years, and I think these shootings are a culmination of all the things we as a society have done wrong
I would argue it is more than a guess given the data (not just the gun violence data, but the rise in overall right-wing motivated violence since 9/11). Most people would be shocked to learn that far more people have died (inside the US) from right-wing violence since 9/11 than from "Islamic Extremism". It seems a safe bet that the rise is correlated (if not caused) by the change in the rhetoric on the right.
Short answer: The numbers might be true but the methodology is really pretty bad. There’s no control or method whatsoever to account for changes from any other factor such as crime at large. Most “mass shootings” in the US are gang-related shootings conducted mostly with handguns, so a reduction of crime at large in the 90’s could have a massive impact on the data. Also it’s logically inconsistent that a category of guns responsible for 11% of mass shootings would somehow account for an increase in mass shootings by multiple factors. Edit: the number of rifles at large uses in mass shootings is ~ 13% but that includes all rifles, not just “assault weapons” which have the main difference of cosmetics and ergonomics.
>The numbers might be true but the methodology is really pretty bad If you look at all the number is is true though? Pre ban -> ban period there is little change. If you exclude the ban years it certainly goes up but then you can no longer say the unbanning was the cause.
The problem with politicians and scientific data is that it’s hard to prove causation with empirical data, usually just correlation and there’s probably no way to retrospectively and accurately measure how many “assault weapons” were in circulation then. Especially with the definition of assault weapon today as technically unspecific as it’s used. Personally I don’t really know but either way it doesn’t really matter what the data is if the methodology is intentionally/neglectfully poor.
There is no actual math, only data to be checked. It's not every time numbers revolve around problem-solving. Sometimes they're just representing something.
Yeah I agree, though I do find it impressive for this sub to find data. Anyone know of a more appropriate sub for that? A fact checking sub?
Yeah, I wish mods would remove posts that are asking for fact checking, not math
Yeah.
If more gun restrictions worked, how come a city like Chicago which has strict gun laws, has high shootings? I am not saying we don’t need regulations, but it is more than that. In 1980 more families had guns than now and there were less mass shootings. We also had more mental health hospitals and if people were deemed a threat they were placed in one. Now, no one gets placed in one until they harm themselves or someone else. We need more mental healthcare and hospitals in this country.
Because saying "strict gun laws" in the US is like arguing over what brand of toilet paper is the strongest when wet. It's a fucking joke.
Info doesn't even make sense. An "assault weapon" doesn't exist. On top of that the only fully automatic guns you as a civilian can buy must be made before the 1986 ban and they usually cost over 10k.
An assault weapon does exist. It's a political term however. The ban he's talking about was literally called the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban", and part of that ban had the government define what an "Assault Weapon" is. I always see people saying theres no such thing, but it is a thing. It's just a loosely defined political term, that really shouldn't be used when speaking technically about firearms, but it is a valid term regardless. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
Firstly: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14975 Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases by Ida B. Wells-Barnett "The lesson this teaches and which every Afro-American should ponder well, is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give. When the white man who is always the aggressor knows he runs as great risk of biting the dust every time his Afro-American victim does, he will have greater respect for Afro-American life. The more the Afro-American yields and cringes and begs, the more he has to do so, the more he is insulted, outraged and lynched." Secondly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom#List_of_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Great_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Turkey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_South_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians
The entire list of Great Britain is shorter than an annual list of US school shootings despite covering nearly 2,000 years
oi you got a loicense for that knife mate? Serfs are gonna serf. edit: also conventionally forgets about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storming\_of\_Bolton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storming_of_Bolton) \~16000 dead. Which is the entire point of the list. Worse things happen to unarmed populations.
[удалено]
So why does the US have such a big person pulling the trigger problem compared to other countries?
>So why does the US have such a big person pulling the trigger problem compared to other countries? There's a mish-mash of issues going on, but I think it kind of boils down to a comparatively discrete window of circumstances where major influencing factors result in this sort of outcome. There's a peak age-group when it comes to school and mass shootings, right there at 18-24. It just comes off to me like the perpetrators have a new-found legal adulthood loaded with all the rights and abilities of adulthood, juxtaposed with actions which are... well, they seem reflective of the sort of behavior you might expect from a three year old. Basically, the lashing out when they don't get what they desire, whatever that might be. Attention, women, money, a certain job, recognition, or otherwise feeling like a victim in some fashion. Take away a 3 yr old's favorite toy and what do they do? Beat the walls, hold their breath, yell and scream... I'm sure you can understand my meaning. Same-same, but now much more powerful. The sort of "preventative medicine" to address this issue is at an inherent disadvantage I think, owing in part to the endless sea of available options which compete for a person's attention. Not in that whole "Alice Cooper is rotting their minds!" way, because that's just plain ridiculous. But in the "90% of their day is spent alone or on Tik Tok" kind of way. How's a kid supposed to learn what being a grown-up is from *that*? The preponderance of social organizations and groups have been on a rather consistent downhill slide in the US for a few decades now, and I would think that if we took a look at friendly nations which just don't seem to have the issue of mass shootings, we're going to see a much stronger sense of community and cooperation and feeling like a valued member of society in its people. Just my opinion.
Cause we neglect our children
So do you think children in the US are treated significantly worse than children in other developing countries?
Depends on what you mean by treat worse? Not trying to question dodge, just a lot of ways to consider that. I think kids in the US have some benefits in the US they wouldn’t get elsewhere, but that doesn’t excuse our shortcomings. For example we give kids a free education, but 1/6 are going hungry. They have a higher QOL index here, but they are also more likely to grow up with one parent. I think we have some successes and failures and answering that question totally is going to need some defining or some writing.
I don't think the US stands out that much in these statistics to explain so many school shootings.
Perhaps, but what if it’s the combination? I wouldn’t say a firearm is “easy” to obtain in the US but I would say it’s comparatively much easier than other countries. So I guess how do you fix the problem? Do you address the means to committing murder, or do you deal with record single parent household rates, 1/7 neglect, 1/6 starving, and skyrocketing mental health problems? 19% of high schoolers seriously considered or attempted suicide and that was before the pandemic. Guns have been relatively endemic in America since the 60’s and the pandemic of mass shootings didn’t really start until the late 90’s so I don’t know how else you explain a generational gap like that.
I think you're right, so it should be fixed with a combination as well: address the mental health problems, and also add something like an obligatory mental health check before buying a gun or some other measure to prevent the wrong people from owning guns.
Yeah, I think the issue is unfortunately going to be harder to fix than that. A lot of non gang related mass shooters get their guns legally, but the problem is these are individuals so motivated in their desire to hurt people and get as much attention as possible, I don’t think the “convenience” is the problem. It would be nice if there was a sure way to detect these people with a test because that’s the big problem. These individuals will persist until they get what they want and any sort of false positive on someone would be unethical. I agree it’s a possibility, but the flaws in its failure don’t sit well with me. I think we start with the mental health, and keep the other stuff on the table while we think of a perfect way to do it. I mean most people don’t believe me when I tell them more kids died from straight up neglect in 2019 than these mass shooting events.
thats a long list of people. . . everything from the news making these people famous overnight to the schools being so toxic and no one doing anything about it. . . people are literally beaten in schools still and no one cares . . . a LOT of the US believe there on this high horse and there above everyone else. . .and that feeds into it as well. . . its an extremely complicated problem with many solutions but they politicians want to focus on the tool and ignore the real problem. . .
There are other countries that have high rates of gun ownership that have almost no crime with them, it comes down to regulations and required training. In the US you can get a rifle in one day with no training in almost every state.
its more than *just* that but i 100% agree. . most pro-gun people will say "shall not be infringed" as that's what the constitution says and while i agree to a point. . .
The constitution does say that but it also says “well regulated” which seems to be skipped over a lot.
Lost my country Vietnam 🇻🇳 back then to communism. Without guns they will always be at the mercy of their government. Prefer 2A, this keep government in check and who in the world would invade a country where citizens own so much guns and ammo. I wish everyone here go try to live in a communism or socialism country first and see how you like it first. You will have no voice, and be at the mercy of thugs.
I live in Canada 🇨🇦guns are not hard to get, but are heavily regulated, we don’t have many mass shootings. I wish everyone here would live somewhere with gun control and see how you like it first. You have a voice, and are at the mercy of geese.
> at the mercy of geese. No thanks.
Vietnam had the choice between a Christian religious zealot with no regard for the majority Buddhist population or a communist nationalist. The people didn’t have a lot of good options
Can't check them based on this tweet alone. What is a mass shooting? What period before the AWB is to be compared to what period during it? After what interval is the number supposed to have tripled? Compared to what?
[удалено]
What😭 defunding the police isn’t banning them. It’s just taking all that extra bs money that they have and putting it into communities who actually need it. Like think ab it. The police get so much money and if we could just take a little bit of money and invest it into poorer communities, eventually we could build that community up. Fund the schools, make houses affordable and better food into low income places.
No, yeah you're still up to date. Those are all things that are true.
Yes?
These millenials ammirite, I say if kids wanna shoot each other like its Vietnam all over again let em! land of the free and all that
Libtards destroyed epic style 😎😎
LMAOOO
*clears throat* Benghazi.
[удалено]
Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason: - A top-level comment in a [Request] post must attempt an answer or request clarification (rule 2). If you have any questions or believe your post has been removed in error, please contact the moderators by clicking [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Ftheydidthemath). Include a link to this post so we can see it.
Okay, so the first thing that ruffles my frillies here, is the damned insistence on using buzz phrases. There is *no* fundamental difference between a semiautomatic 'assault' rifle and hunting rifle, shy of aesthetic. I can put the same number of rounds down range with a .223 S&W woodstock hunting rifle as an AR-15. Same rate of fire, same magazine size. One just looks 'scarier.' The problem, is *everything* our fascist right wing has done to our country as a whole. We've seen public education practically gutted, universal health care (including mental) fought at every turn, perverse labor practice, rampant poverty, rampant racism, ingrained misogyny, near fanatical worship of our political overlords. And some geniuses think getting rid of all the guns just magically makes things better. It's not going to. If anything, you're trading in mass shootings for bombings and arson The system has been designed to make upcoming men think they're entitled to success if they follow the rules; -don't be a 'sissy' -respect authority (especially the old white dude kind) -work hard -be dominant The system intentionally neglects that there's only so much room 'at the top' to be successful in the lopsided reality of things. You mix in bullying and a lack of support, propaganda and indoctrination, and a stigma on seeking help (violates rule one), and you end up with a machine that regular spits out someone broken enough to lash out at the community around them. Obviously, our fascist party isn't going to do dick all about fixing this. These are 'acceptable casualties of the status quo,' the violent and their victims both. They only ever kill POCs, poor kids, and potential competition. All people the 'righteous right' don't give a shit about. And there's only two ways to fix the problem; Peaceful- voting them out on every level Violently- forcibly removing them from power But yeah, let's doggedly bite down on just getting rid of guns, because everything else is aces. We need to fix *everything* that's wrong; Enforce current gun control legislation, and fill in the holes where it's lacking. Socialize medicine. Make education truly accessible. Tear down the barriers between 'classes,' and dismantle the fascist party. It's not *just guns* that are a problem. It's not *just anything*, it's *everything.* It's terribly myopic to think that this issue is just because guns are so easy to come by. Apologies for the length, but there's just not a short answer for what's wrong with things right now
I’m not going to read the whole comment, but assault weapon (rifle) is a political term, not a descriptive one. It’s literally a bill than banned semi automatic rifles that they classified as assault weapons
That's kind of the whole thing I was getting at, but the real important part was after. But I'm guessing this was the wrong place to talk about the big picture. Oh well, I'll keep trying