3 ms·

Sounds to me like its not possible for such a deterrent to exist, I wonder what solutions other countries have come up with

hkt 5y ago
Gun control and restorative justice approaches seem to be the trick. From the outside it appears a militarised police apparatus isn't working for the US and would be a great target for substantial budget cuts.
- InsomniacL 5y ago
  Why would you talk about reducing the budget of your current solution before replacing it with something else? Do you think the situation would not get substantially worse? You could ban guns tomorrow but the type of people who are firing 30 shots in to random houses aren't going lay down their arms.
  - hkt 5y ago
    Because you can then reallocate the funding from the solution that doesn't work (militarised police, mass incarceration) to solutions that do. The police don't prevent people from firing thirty random shots into a house, but decent alternatives to crime - even for those with little or no educational achievements - might. It requires a holistic approach though, with multiple agencies and policies working together, which is a hard transition from targeted intervention, whether that be policing or sticking plasters. There's a leap of faith involved in making that connection, but it is a small leap once you look at other countries and see how their systems work. The fundamental step is to not make life so awful that desperate people decide a high-stakes life of crime is worth it.
guerrilla 5y ago
What you do is find the root causes and work on eliminating them. A lot of this stuff is just caused by poverty or mental illness. You can just eliminate those and be done with a large part of the problem.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  How would we eliminate poverty?
  - yawaramin 5y ago
    Universal Basic Income.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    You give money to people who don't have it, like we do in Sweden. If they're disabled, get them pension. If they can't get a job, get them education or training. If they don't have a house, get them one.
  - pandemicsoul 5y ago
    It's not that mysterious, lots of other countries manage to do it fairly well: You create a minimum standard of living and help anyone that falls below that. A social safety net. If you have no place to live, the government provides you with a relatively good alternative (not homeless shelters – those places are awful). If you don't have enough to eat, the government gives you food or money to buy it. You make sure newborn babies have food and care. You set up a system of laws that make sure companies provide time for parents to take care of their newborns. You make it easy and relatively cheap for parents to find early education options and child care. You give people healthcare so they're healthier as adults. You provide options for mental healthcare to help people avoid violence. All of this stuff raises the quality of life for everyone.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  Root causes of this particular incident? The possession of deadly weapons by people who rarely have a legitimate need to have them beyond "MY RIGHTS" and "SECOND AMENDMENT". This has nothing to do with poverty. I don't think any kind of punishment could effectively deter this because I don't believe this was intentional or that the perpetrator even imagined that the bullet could still kill someone despite the distance and obstacles on the way. Not to mention that as another comment points out, capital punishment is a thing and that still isn't enough to deter murder/etc. The main problem here is that people have access to and an obsession with deadly weapons. This obsession leads them to acquire those weapons even when they have no legitimate reason to own/carry them. Accidents are bound to happen even with trained users, but typically the risk is worthwhile when you have a legitimate need to own/carry the weapon. When you don't have a legitimate need however, it's just needless risk-taking that will eventually produce situations like this.

hkt 5y ago

Gun control and restorative justice approaches seem to be the trick. From the outside it appears a militarised police apparatus isn't working for the US and would be a great target for substantial budget cuts.

InsomniacL 5y ago
Why would you talk about reducing the budget of your current solution before replacing it with something else? Do you think the situation would not get substantially worse? You could ban guns tomorrow but the type of people who are firing 30 shots in to random houses aren't going lay down their arms.
- hkt 5y ago
  Because you can then reallocate the funding from the solution that doesn't work (militarised police, mass incarceration) to solutions that do. The police don't prevent people from firing thirty random shots into a house, but decent alternatives to crime - even for those with little or no educational achievements - might. It requires a holistic approach though, with multiple agencies and policies working together, which is a hard transition from targeted intervention, whether that be policing or sticking plasters. There's a leap of faith involved in making that connection, but it is a small leap once you look at other countries and see how their systems work. The fundamental step is to not make life so awful that desperate people decide a high-stakes life of crime is worth it.

guerrilla 5y ago

What you do is find the root causes and work on eliminating them. A lot of this stuff is just caused by poverty or mental illness. You can just eliminate those and be done with a large part of the problem.

netizen-936824 5y ago
How would we eliminate poverty?
- yawaramin 5y ago
  Universal Basic Income.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  You give money to people who don't have it, like we do in Sweden. If they're disabled, get them pension. If they can't get a job, get them education or training. If they don't have a house, get them one.
- pandemicsoul 5y ago
  It's not that mysterious, lots of other countries manage to do it fairly well: You create a minimum standard of living and help anyone that falls below that. A social safety net. If you have no place to live, the government provides you with a relatively good alternative (not homeless shelters – those places are awful). If you don't have enough to eat, the government gives you food or money to buy it. You make sure newborn babies have food and care. You set up a system of laws that make sure companies provide time for parents to take care of their newborns. You make it easy and relatively cheap for parents to find early education options and child care. You give people healthcare so they're healthier as adults. You provide options for mental healthcare to help people avoid violence. All of this stuff raises the quality of life for everyone.
Nextgrid 5y ago
Root causes of this particular incident? The possession of deadly weapons by people who rarely have a legitimate need to have them beyond "MY RIGHTS" and "SECOND AMENDMENT". This has nothing to do with poverty. I don't think any kind of punishment could effectively deter this because I don't believe this was intentional or that the perpetrator even imagined that the bullet could still kill someone despite the distance and obstacles on the way. Not to mention that as another comment points out, capital punishment is a thing and that still isn't enough to deter murder/etc. The main problem here is that people have access to and an obsession with deadly weapons. This obsession leads them to acquire those weapons even when they have no legitimate reason to own/carry them. Accidents are bound to happen even with trained users, but typically the risk is worthwhile when you have a legitimate need to own/carry the weapon. When you don't have a legitimate need however, it's just needless risk-taking that will eventually produce situations like this.