5 ms·

Even if you solved that, you'd still have problems with knives (you can't outlaw kitchen knives), homemade explosives, sticks, screwdrivers, acid, etc. Mental

Even if you solved that, you'd still have problems with knives (you can't outlaw kitchen knives), homemade explosives, sticks, screwdrivers, acid, etc. Mental health, crime, and drugs (also, again crime related to those), and you've solved most of the problems. Just legalizing some drugs would probably solve more than half of the issues in some places.

closewith 4y ago
Watching Americans try to justify gun culture and why it isn't the real problem is always baffling to me. I do wonder if you're expressing genuinely held beliefs or if your head is wilfully in the sand.
- amalgamated_inc 4y ago
  Lol watching non-Americans and their Stockholm syndrome about their governments taking their rights away is always amusing to me. If you don't have a gun you're not a citizen, you're a subject.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  The irony of your "head is willfully in the sand" remark in the context of an ever-widening hole in the effectiveness of gun control is thick enough to spread on toast. "Gun culture" (whatever that actually means) is not the problem. The fact that the US is the least-developed of the "developed" world is the problem. The fact American income disparity and mental health are both deteriorating at a rapid pace is the problem. People kill each other (or, more commonly, themselves) here in the US - with or without guns - because they're broke, stressed the fuck out, and so desperate for any semblance of relief that they're driven to either put themselves out of the misery our capitalist system has thrust upon them or else lash out at the rest of the very society disenfranchising them.
Gwypaas 4y ago
Fitting right in with Nicaragua and Zimbabwe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...
VikingCoder 4y ago
Have you looked into the statistics of how many people succeed in suicide, world-wide, from knives, homemade explosives, sticks, screwdrivers, vs. how many succeed in suicide from firearms? I mean, have you? If you haven't, then why would you bring them up as "problems"? Or are you just spit-balling?
- kobalsky 4y ago
  Disclaimer: I'm not from the US. I don't understand this importance of that metric. The US has a high suicide rate but there are EU contries with a much lower guns per capita that have similar suicide rate. Sweden has a rate of 12.4 vs 14.5 suicides in the US per 100k people [1], yet the guns-per-100-persons in Sweden is 23.1 vs 120.5 in the US [2]. An undeducated glance of the numbers shows that people tend to hang themselves when guns are not readily available like in the US [3]. How much do you think suicide will drop in the US if you removed all weapons overnight? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2649482/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2649482/
  - VikingCoder 4y ago
    You haven't answered my question. What is the suicide rate from knives? You specifically brought up knives as a "problem." Your word. What is the suicide rate from homemade explosives? Sticks? Screwdrivers? You brought those up as "problems." The evidence I have seen makes me believe that suicide in otherwise healthy individuals seems to be a fleeting goal. It's not as though someone becomes set upon their decision, and continues attempting it until they succeed, for the vast majority of people. Thus, when someone has the temporary motive of suicide, and they have a firearm available, they tend to succeed. When they have a temporary motive of suicide, but they don't have a firearm available, they succeed less often. I get that the burden would be on me to argue that perspective with evidence, and I'm not going to be able to provide it any time soon, and I apologize for that. But since you brought up the "problems" of knives, homemade explosives, sticks, and screwdrivers, again, I have to ask - do you have any evidence that those are worth being described as "problems"?
bayesian_horse 4y ago
It's much harder to kill people with a knife than with a gun. In the US, mass shooters have killed a dozen or more victims in a minute or two. Very hard to achieve with anything else short of explosives.
- lazide 4y ago
  Good thing no one ever uses IEDs then…..
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    As I said, short of "explosives" which IEDs need. And yes, IEDs are rarer than gun shootings pretty much everywhere, because explosives are a lot better restricted, even in the otherwise completely insane US. I guess some control works??
    - lazide 4y ago
      There are explosives, as in actual regulated explosives, and then there are IEDs, which can use anything from repurposed old artillery shells, to stolen construction explosives, to mixed kitchen chemicals and fertilizer. IEDs are not rarer than shootings because of controls, most likely. A Timothy McVeigh style attack is still very doable with off the shelf stuff. Explosives were never okay in Iraq either, post-Saddam (or guns, for that matter). It didn’t stop IEDs being the #1 threat. Same with Ireland during ‘the troubles’. Guns are direct in application, limited in impact, and expose the wielder to direct harm. Explosives, don’t. Explosives do require a degree of planning that a gun doesn’t though. And tend to be clearly ‘terrorist’/‘terrible’ in nature. The crazy just hasn’t been bottled up enough for it to get there in the US. Yet, anyway.
- karaterobot 4y ago
  Look up vehicle ramming attacks. Easy to commit, hard to prevent, very effective from the mass murderer's perspective. For example, in 2016, an attack with a truck killed 86 people and wounded 458 in Nice. You can't stop people from mass murder if they have their mind set on it. The best prevention would be figure out why they want to kill and solve the underlying issue, but that's too hard I guess. Strategies like "ban X" are an admission that we're not interested in root causes. Instead we pretend that removing the instruments or making the penalties worse will work. Predictably, all that will happen is people who want to commit mass murder will find other ways to do it.
throw0101c 4y ago
> Mental health, crime, and drugs (also, again crime related to those), and you've solved most of the problems. ¿Por qué no los dos? At the very least having a filter so that not just any rando can walk around packing heat would probably be helpful: * https://www.autoblog.com/2022/01/31/florida-man-road-rage-shoots-out-windows-video/ https://www.autoblog.com/2022/01/31/florida-man-road-rage-sh... If you want it at home for whatever reason, have fun. Though some safe storage laws may be a good idea (and strong liability): * https://www.cbsnews.com/news/first-grader-allegedly-shot-teacher-virginia-expert-what-could-be-next/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/first-grader-allegedly-shot-tea...
- allanmacgregor 4y ago
  Canada has already the filters for legal gun owners; we are not the states the amount of hoops that legal gun owners have to go through. Anyone that owns a restricted firearm; like handguns or rifles under certain length is added to a database and their name is daily checked for felonies, domestic abuse, etc. In order to get a permit, you have to get sign of your spouse or if you are under 2 years divorced from the previous partner. Mandatory training and course certification is part of it. We don't have open carry here. Restricted can only be used on ranges. We have transport permits; etc etc etc 80% or more or guns used in violent crime are illegal and coming from the US border. Why? Harder to trace, don't any of the magazine or automatic restrictions that there are in Canada.
incomingpain 4y ago
>Even if you solved that, you'd still have problems with knives (you can't outlaw kitchen knives), There are many pictures with labels in the uk saying you have to be over 18 to buy plastic utensils, because there's a knife. This is why the UK had more homicides after banning firearms. Homicides up, gun related homicides down. Turns out, you have some gangster shoot up a place. They land perhaps a couple shots and run off. The victim is rushed to hospital where they are saved. Chef knife victim on the otherhand will die. So the politicians who banned guns in the UK are morally responsible for more deaths occurring. They could have addressed the actual reason the homicides were occurring but failed to do so.

closewith 4y ago

Watching Americans try to justify gun culture and why it isn't the real problem is always baffling to me. I do wonder if you're expressing genuinely held beliefs or if your head is wilfully in the sand.

amalgamated_inc 4y ago
Lol watching non-Americans and their Stockholm syndrome about their governments taking their rights away is always amusing to me. If you don't have a gun you're not a citizen, you're a subject.
yellowapple 4y ago
The irony of your "head is willfully in the sand" remark in the context of an ever-widening hole in the effectiveness of gun control is thick enough to spread on toast. "Gun culture" (whatever that actually means) is not the problem. The fact that the US is the least-developed of the "developed" world is the problem. The fact American income disparity and mental health are both deteriorating at a rapid pace is the problem. People kill each other (or, more commonly, themselves) here in the US - with or without guns - because they're broke, stressed the fuck out, and so desperate for any semblance of relief that they're driven to either put themselves out of the misery our capitalist system has thrust upon them or else lash out at the rest of the very society disenfranchising them.

Gwypaas 4y ago

Fitting right in with Nicaragua and Zimbabwe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...

VikingCoder 4y ago

Have you looked into the statistics of how many people succeed in suicide, world-wide, from knives, homemade explosives, sticks, screwdrivers, vs. how many succeed in suicide from firearms? I mean, have you? If you haven't, then why would you bring them up as "problems"? Or are you just spit-balling?

kobalsky 4y ago
Disclaimer: I'm not from the US. I don't understand this importance of that metric. The US has a high suicide rate but there are EU contries with a much lower guns per capita that have similar suicide rate. Sweden has a rate of 12.4 vs 14.5 suicides in the US per 100k people [1], yet the guns-per-100-persons in Sweden is 23.1 vs 120.5 in the US [2]. An undeducated glance of the numbers shows that people tend to hang themselves when guns are not readily available like in the US [3]. How much do you think suicide will drop in the US if you removed all weapons overnight? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2649482/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2649482/
- VikingCoder 4y ago
  You haven't answered my question. What is the suicide rate from knives? You specifically brought up knives as a "problem." Your word. What is the suicide rate from homemade explosives? Sticks? Screwdrivers? You brought those up as "problems." The evidence I have seen makes me believe that suicide in otherwise healthy individuals seems to be a fleeting goal. It's not as though someone becomes set upon their decision, and continues attempting it until they succeed, for the vast majority of people. Thus, when someone has the temporary motive of suicide, and they have a firearm available, they tend to succeed. When they have a temporary motive of suicide, but they don't have a firearm available, they succeed less often. I get that the burden would be on me to argue that perspective with evidence, and I'm not going to be able to provide it any time soon, and I apologize for that. But since you brought up the "problems" of knives, homemade explosives, sticks, and screwdrivers, again, I have to ask - do you have any evidence that those are worth being described as "problems"?

bayesian_horse 4y ago

It's much harder to kill people with a knife than with a gun. In the US, mass shooters have killed a dozen or more victims in a minute or two. Very hard to achieve with anything else short of explosives.

lazide 4y ago
Good thing no one ever uses IEDs then…..
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  As I said, short of "explosives" which IEDs need. And yes, IEDs are rarer than gun shootings pretty much everywhere, because explosives are a lot better restricted, even in the otherwise completely insane US. I guess some control works??
  - lazide 4y ago
    There are explosives, as in actual regulated explosives, and then there are IEDs, which can use anything from repurposed old artillery shells, to stolen construction explosives, to mixed kitchen chemicals and fertilizer. IEDs are not rarer than shootings because of controls, most likely. A Timothy McVeigh style attack is still very doable with off the shelf stuff. Explosives were never okay in Iraq either, post-Saddam (or guns, for that matter). It didn’t stop IEDs being the #1 threat. Same with Ireland during ‘the troubles’. Guns are direct in application, limited in impact, and expose the wielder to direct harm. Explosives, don’t. Explosives do require a degree of planning that a gun doesn’t though. And tend to be clearly ‘terrorist’/‘terrible’ in nature. The crazy just hasn’t been bottled up enough for it to get there in the US. Yet, anyway.
karaterobot 4y ago
Look up vehicle ramming attacks. Easy to commit, hard to prevent, very effective from the mass murderer's perspective. For example, in 2016, an attack with a truck killed 86 people and wounded 458 in Nice. You can't stop people from mass murder if they have their mind set on it. The best prevention would be figure out why they want to kill and solve the underlying issue, but that's too hard I guess. Strategies like "ban X" are an admission that we're not interested in root causes. Instead we pretend that removing the instruments or making the penalties worse will work. Predictably, all that will happen is people who want to commit mass murder will find other ways to do it.

throw0101c 4y ago

> Mental health, crime, and drugs (also, again crime related to those), and you've solved most of the problems. ¿Por qué no los dos? At the very least having a filter so that not just any rando can walk around packing heat would probably be helpful: * https://www.autoblog.com/2022/01/31/florida-man-road-rage-shoots-out-windows-video/ https://www.autoblog.com/2022/01/31/florida-man-road-rage-sh... If you want it at home for whatever reason, have fun. Though some safe storage laws may be a good idea (and strong liability): * https://www.cbsnews.com/news/first-grader-allegedly-shot-teacher-virginia-expert-what-could-be-next/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/first-grader-allegedly-shot-tea...

allanmacgregor 4y ago
Canada has already the filters for legal gun owners; we are not the states the amount of hoops that legal gun owners have to go through. Anyone that owns a restricted firearm; like handguns or rifles under certain length is added to a database and their name is daily checked for felonies, domestic abuse, etc. In order to get a permit, you have to get sign of your spouse or if you are under 2 years divorced from the previous partner. Mandatory training and course certification is part of it. We don't have open carry here. Restricted can only be used on ranges. We have transport permits; etc etc etc 80% or more or guns used in violent crime are illegal and coming from the US border. Why? Harder to trace, don't any of the magazine or automatic restrictions that there are in Canada.

incomingpain 4y ago

>Even if you solved that, you'd still have problems with knives (you can't outlaw kitchen knives), There are many pictures with labels in the uk saying you have to be over 18 to buy plastic utensils, because there's a knife. This is why the UK had more homicides after banning firearms. Homicides up, gun related homicides down. Turns out, you have some gangster shoot up a place. They land perhaps a couple shots and run off. The victim is rushed to hospital where they are saved. Chef knife victim on the otherhand will die. So the politicians who banned guns in the UK are morally responsible for more deaths occurring. They could have addressed the actual reason the homicides were occurring but failed to do so.