4 ms·

I think your explanation is somewhat simplistic, but the observation that societies different from the US manage without the massive police violence is of cours

I think your explanation is somewhat simplistic, but the observation that societies different from the US manage without the massive police violence is of course spot on. There was a (now deleted) comment a few minutes ago about a police response resulting in someone being shot by the police, the commenter concluded that it was overall reasonable given the circumstances, since no one else got hurt. That looks like a rather low standard to hold police to, at least from my socialization... ... and I think it is pretty clear that the relation between police and (the other) people [1] is a societal dialogue. When the majority of people think it is ok for the police to shoot people over fairly minimal whateveractions or -inactions, then the police force will act in that direction. If the majority considers that unacceptable, then the police will try harder not shooting people. It is similar to guns methinks; if a majority actually felt that regular shootings are an issue that ought to be fixed, then ... duh... something would happen. Nothing happens, though. What does that say about the society this takes place in? [1] A word that gets used here sometimes (in mostly American, Russian or 3rd world contexts) is civil[ists], which sounds kinda strange to me (from my perspective police is a civil institution, not a para-military institution that you can contrast with civil - more differences in the same vein).

thisacctforreal 9y ago
Mass shootings in America are not an easy problem to fix. If 0.00005% of the population decides to spend the last 20 minutes of their life going on a murder spree, there's not much you can do, at least in the context of America. Guns are prolific in the US: between 2000 and 2010, 2,000,000 AR15s alone were manufactured for domestic use. Deciding on a set of laws to control that number of firearms to end these arbitrary events is not simple, and perhaps not feasible with how many citizens regard firearm ownership a right. California has some of the strictest gun laws, but has been victim to more mass shootings than other states (of course depends on the definition of mass shooting). America Uncovered (from Chris Chappel of China Uncensored) does a relatively good unbiased video on the topic https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hAtLnTyimT0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hAtLnTyimT0 [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html [2] https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/dec/17/how-many-ar15-rifles-sold https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/dec/17/how-ma...
- blattimwind 9y ago
  I didn't say anything about gun control or other measures that might be employed to control issues such as regular shootings. I only said shootings don't seem to be considered a problem that needs fixing by (presumably) a majority of the society you live in. On a societal scale just because there is a differential across different societies does not mean that one is wrong and the other is correct. They might just be different. For some people, for example, it is obvious that you can't compare median European culture to American culture (in as much as American and central Chinese culture do not compare, to cite another, perhaps more obvious and common example), for they are vastly different even if superficially similar and sharing some set of values. Since these societies do not compare, assuming measures to control issues transfer between societies is foolish. I.e. assuming that gun control would work in America based on gun control working in other places is nothing but a non-sequitur in my mind. Again, and just to reiterate, I am not arguing for some set of regulation or another that (presumably) your society should enact or not. I merely observe differences and of course see things in a certain light and tend to rank and order things a certain way, after all, I know in which society I want to live, and I know in what society I would never want to live. (clarification: when I write "America" I specifically mean the United States thereof)
- maxerickson 9y ago
  It will take decades and billions of dollars to meaningfully reduce the amount of guns in the US. We should get started asap.
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    This would do more harm than good IMO. There is a large proportion of the population that does not want this done, and would actively fight against any attempt to remove their constitutional right to bear arms. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I think focusing on mental health and inequality/poverty alleviation is a more viable option in our country than weapons removal.
    - maxerickson 9y ago

thisacctforreal 9y ago

Mass shootings in America are not an easy problem to fix. If 0.00005% of the population decides to spend the last 20 minutes of their life going on a murder spree, there's not much you can do, at least in the context of America. Guns are prolific in the US: between 2000 and 2010, 2,000,000 AR15s alone were manufactured for domestic use. Deciding on a set of laws to control that number of firearms to end these arbitrary events is not simple, and perhaps not feasible with how many citizens regard firearm ownership a right. California has some of the strictest gun laws, but has been victim to more mass shootings than other states (of course depends on the definition of mass shooting). America Uncovered (from Chris Chappel of China Uncensored) does a relatively good unbiased video on the topic https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hAtLnTyimT0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hAtLnTyimT0 [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html [2] https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/dec/17/how-many-ar15-rifles-sold https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/dec/17/how-ma...

blattimwind 9y ago
I didn't say anything about gun control or other measures that might be employed to control issues such as regular shootings. I only said shootings don't seem to be considered a problem that needs fixing by (presumably) a majority of the society you live in. On a societal scale just because there is a differential across different societies does not mean that one is wrong and the other is correct. They might just be different. For some people, for example, it is obvious that you can't compare median European culture to American culture (in as much as American and central Chinese culture do not compare, to cite another, perhaps more obvious and common example), for they are vastly different even if superficially similar and sharing some set of values. Since these societies do not compare, assuming measures to control issues transfer between societies is foolish. I.e. assuming that gun control would work in America based on gun control working in other places is nothing but a non-sequitur in my mind. Again, and just to reiterate, I am not arguing for some set of regulation or another that (presumably) your society should enact or not. I merely observe differences and of course see things in a certain light and tend to rank and order things a certain way, after all, I know in which society I want to live, and I know in what society I would never want to live. (clarification: when I write "America" I specifically mean the United States thereof)
maxerickson 9y ago
It will take decades and billions of dollars to meaningfully reduce the amount of guns in the US. We should get started asap.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  This would do more harm than good IMO. There is a large proportion of the population that does not want this done, and would actively fight against any attempt to remove their constitutional right to bear arms. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I think focusing on mental health and inequality/poverty alleviation is a more viable option in our country than weapons removal.
  - maxerickson 9y ago