4 ms·

Agreed, that vector won't happen again. The #2 hopefully will never happen again (Tulsa race massacre). But the #3 (Oklahoma City bombing) could happen again

by kyrra 4y ago

Agreed, that vector won't happen again. The #2 hopefully will never happen again (Tulsa race massacre). But the #3 (Oklahoma City bombing) could happen again with a sufficiently dedicated person. But people are creative, and some other method could be used in the future. The Boston Marathon bombing was only 3 deaths, but 264 injured, and that was just a pressure cooker. The Trollhättan school attack was 3 killed with a sword. Guns are a tool, a very deadly tool, but a tool none the less. Removing them from the US would be near impossible at this point (with the 2nd and 4th amendments getting in the way). It's also not all that popular in this country. Stricter gun laws don't seem to help (see the Buffalo shooting, in a state with red-flag laws). One interesting point I heard raised is that the phrase "going postal" was born from an era where workplace shootings became common, but have since near disappeared (with background checks being a large part of the reason). Figuring out why our younger population is doing down the route they have the last 25'ish years is something that has yet to be corrected.

jrockway 4y ago
I think the thing with guns is that they tip the power balance too far in favor of the shooter. They are hard to defend against. They can do damage at range. Not a lot of skill is required to cause a lot of damage. You don't need a lot of creativity or even the ability to think clearly enough to execute a plan. You just have a gun laying around, decide "today's the day", and go live stream the next national tragedy. Not great. You're right that we'll never ban guns in the US, but if we did, I think we'd see a lot less mass casualty events. People will still kill each other, of course, but it moves that breakpoint farther away from the average person's means, and moving that breakpoint means less innocent dead people. Seems fair to me. Basically, I agree that people are creative, and a person who wants to kill someone (or many people) will find a way to do it. But if you make it harder, people will give up. Doing stuff is hard! Let's make it harder.
- multjoy 4y ago
  The weapons used in these shootings are inevitably AR15 variants. That's a rifle that is designed to put lethal rounds in targets as quickly as you can hit the trigger, with a 30 round magazine (and with a modicum of practice you can reload almost without interruption). Even the the ubiquitous glock can sustain similar rates of fire, although the survivability may be greater. If the average person is facing someone with any intent to do harm with a modern firearm then there is no power balance.
  - lliamander 4y ago
    AR-15s are also effective for self-defense purposes. You can also build an AR-15 with a block of metal, a CNC machine, and plans that are freely available on the Internet. There is no effective means by which you could prevent an AR-15 from ending up in peoples' hands.
    - multjoy 4y ago
      A golf club is also effective for self defence purposes. In any case, those same tools are available globally and AR15s simply aren't ending up in people's hands, or the hands of school shooters.
      - lliamander 4y ago
        > A golf club is also effective for self defence purposes I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.
        multjoy 4y ago
        Point me to any other country in the western world where the concept of self defence is predicated on the possession of an AR15 capable of discharging 30 high-velocity rifle rounds in fifteen seconds. Presumably, as your idea of self defence is overwhelming firepower, you spend your days campaigning against the ban on automatic weapons?
        lliamander 4y ago
        > Point me to any other country in the western world where the concept of self defence is predicated on the possession of an AR15 capable of discharging 30 high-velocity rifle rounds in fifteen seconds. Prohibitions on such weapons do not reduce the overall violent crime rate, so I don't see why it matters. > Presumably, as your idea of self defence is overwhelming firepower, you spend your days campaigning against the ban on automatic weapons? What you imagine I think or do has no bearing on the arguments at hand.
- numpad0 4y ago
  I don't know how I sound saying this but I think airsoft is a great hobby. It's basically guns with every scary features, except it can't cause physical harm. I think it could be employed to create a gradient of lethality proportional to population density.
JohnWhigham 4y ago
Guns are a tool, a very deadly tool, but a tool none the less. Really tired of seeing this argument. They're made for killing, period. Fertilizer, box cutter, automobiles all have other uses. Killing is not one of them. For guns, it's in the top 3. And I say this as a gun owner.

by kyrra 4y ago

jrockway 4y ago

I think the thing with guns is that they tip the power balance too far in favor of the shooter. They are hard to defend against. They can do damage at range. Not a lot of skill is required to cause a lot of damage. You don't need a lot of creativity or even the ability to think clearly enough to execute a plan. You just have a gun laying around, decide "today's the day", and go live stream the next national tragedy. Not great. You're right that we'll never ban guns in the US, but if we did, I think we'd see a lot less mass casualty events. People will still kill each other, of course, but it moves that breakpoint farther away from the average person's means, and moving that breakpoint means less innocent dead people. Seems fair to me. Basically, I agree that people are creative, and a person who wants to kill someone (or many people) will find a way to do it. But if you make it harder, people will give up. Doing stuff is hard! Let's make it harder.

multjoy 4y ago
The weapons used in these shootings are inevitably AR15 variants. That's a rifle that is designed to put lethal rounds in targets as quickly as you can hit the trigger, with a 30 round magazine (and with a modicum of practice you can reload almost without interruption). Even the the ubiquitous glock can sustain similar rates of fire, although the survivability may be greater. If the average person is facing someone with any intent to do harm with a modern firearm then there is no power balance.
- lliamander 4y ago
  AR-15s are also effective for self-defense purposes. You can also build an AR-15 with a block of metal, a CNC machine, and plans that are freely available on the Internet. There is no effective means by which you could prevent an AR-15 from ending up in peoples' hands.
  - multjoy 4y ago
    A golf club is also effective for self defence purposes. In any case, those same tools are available globally and AR15s simply aren't ending up in people's hands, or the hands of school shooters.
    - lliamander 4y ago
      > A golf club is also effective for self defence purposes I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.
      - multjoy 4y ago
        Point me to any other country in the western world where the concept of self defence is predicated on the possession of an AR15 capable of discharging 30 high-velocity rifle rounds in fifteen seconds. Presumably, as your idea of self defence is overwhelming firepower, you spend your days campaigning against the ban on automatic weapons?
        lliamander 4y ago
        > Point me to any other country in the western world where the concept of self defence is predicated on the possession of an AR15 capable of discharging 30 high-velocity rifle rounds in fifteen seconds. Prohibitions on such weapons do not reduce the overall violent crime rate, so I don't see why it matters. > Presumably, as your idea of self defence is overwhelming firepower, you spend your days campaigning against the ban on automatic weapons? What you imagine I think or do has no bearing on the arguments at hand.
numpad0 4y ago
I don't know how I sound saying this but I think airsoft is a great hobby. It's basically guns with every scary features, except it can't cause physical harm. I think it could be employed to create a gradient of lethality proportional to population density.

JohnWhigham 4y ago

Guns are a tool, a very deadly tool, but a tool none the less. Really tired of seeing this argument. They're made for killing, period. Fertilizer, box cutter, automobiles all have other uses. Killing is not one of them. For guns, it's in the top 3. And I say this as a gun owner.