61 ms·

Speaking as an American, I can tell you that pictures of dead kids is not going to do anything to further the gun control agenda. Nobody but a madman supports m

Speaking as an American, I can tell you that pictures of dead kids is not going to do anything to further the gun control agenda. Nobody but a madman supports murdering children. In fact, murder is illegal in this country, as is assault and brandishing firearms. These laws don't stop insane people from using weapons to murder people. Just like strict knife laws don't stop stabbing. The problem is society is degrading to a point where people are willing to take lives. The more I see dead kids from a school shooting, the more I will advocate for armed guards at schools to help dissuade would-be shooters from attempting anything. I would also advocate for the abolition of "Gun-Free Zones" as they only advertise to criminals that nobody is likely to be armed in these areas. Unfortunately history has shown us time and time again that oppressive leaders disarm their populations before subjecting them to horrific abuses of their power. We aren't falling for it again.

doctor_eval 3y ago
[flagged]
baz00 3y ago
Um, fine over here in the UK. I mean our entire yearly list of shootings is a bad Saturday night in Chicago. And before anyone says "what about the stabbings", our per capita stabbings are about half the US!
- RobertRoberts 3y ago
  You can go to jail in the UK for a drunk tweet on X (twitter). That is not a free society at it's core. Your other freedoms are breath away from being all gone.
  - baz00 3y ago
    Amazing that a US colleague of mine was fired for saying "fuck" to another US colleague. Really free country that with protected speech... When people say freedom in the US it tends to be people free to be assholes to their fellow countrymen. Edit: I have freedom from not being shot in the face in Costco too! That's my favourite freedom.
    - RobertRoberts 3y ago
      Freedom of speech is about liberty of life, not liberty of opportunity. Two totally different things.
      - baz00 3y ago
        What do you think I can't say here? And why was my colleague fired? Surely his speech was protected?
        vdqtp3 3y ago
        Why don't you just Google "uk man arrested for tweet" and you'll find plenty. From the Verge[1]: Section 127 of the Communications Act makes it an offense to send public messages of a “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character,” [1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/7/22912054/uk-grossly-offensive-tweet-prosecution-section-127-2003-communications-act https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/7/22912054/uk-grossly-offens...
        baz00 3y ago
        Yeah actually read the tweets. They were grossly offensive, threatening violence and nasty as hell. You think that's ok? One of them for reference: "kill yourself before I do; rape is the last of your worries; I’ve just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried.”
        vdqtp3 3y ago
        Do I think threats are acceptable, no - and true threats aren't considered protected free speech. ("true threats first amendment" would be your search term, should you like to learn more) Do I think offensive, nasty, hateful speech is free speech? Absolutely. Here's an example of one that I think is an egregious violation of the principle of free speech: https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-sentenced-grossly-offensive-tweet-tom-moore-joseph-kelly https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-...
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    > You can go to jail in the UK for a drunk tweet on X (twitter). That is not a free society at it's core. You could go to jail in the US for a myriad of things that aren't even crimes in the UK. Public urination, for instance. And the US incarceration rate is 4x that of the UK. Not sure which country is more "free".
    - gillytech 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - manuelabeledo 3y ago
        One of the first Anglo colonizers who also fought in the war of independence, what an honour! Jokes aside, it wouldn't hurt to have a more sensible penitentiary and reformation system.
  - LAC-Tech 3y ago
    While that's true - in fact you are if anything downplaying the UKs lack of free speech, as people are convicted for far less - it's not very germane to the UK having lower homicide rates. I feel like most of us want to live in societies with freedom of speech and low homicide rates, and don't feel it has to be one or the other.
  - gusgus01 3y ago
    You can in the US too. Although I'm not sure if he was drunk. https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/oklahomacity/press-releases/2010/ok020210.htm https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/oklahomacity/press-release...
  - fzeroracer 3y ago
    Have you had many interactions with the police? Like been pulled over, contacted or harassed? Because for quite a few people in the US they don't have as much freedom as you might think.
    - manuelabeledo 3y ago
      Assuming that most people who truly believe that the US is a beacon of freedom to the world, are, at the very least, mildly informed about current events, it is astonishing how they bend reality to fit these beliefs. The US has one of the highest prison population per capita in the world. It also arguably has some of the most heavily armed, most unchecked, police forces in the western hemisphere. And here we are, with some arguing that saying nazi shit on Twitter is "proof of freedom".
- paulddraper 3y ago
  Could that be the result of different socioeconomic, racial, and cultural circumstances? Or is just hardware?
  - foldr 3y ago
    Pick your favorite race and check the stats for race-on-race shootings in the US. You'll surely find that it's more than the population-adjusted equivalent the ~30 gun killings we get per year in the UK. Race obviously isn't the key factor here. I do wonder why you would even bring it up. I could also mention that London, which is comparably racially diverse to many major US cities, has far less gun violence than any of them.
    - paulddraper 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - foldr 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - defrost 3y ago
    Uniform regulation across an entire country makes a hell of a difference. The EU has a uniform gun regulation zone, the UK has even enforcement, Australia didn't "ban guns" it simply made a few low population territories and states adopt the same regulations as other high population states had; 12 year olds can join gun clubs, every sale requires a registered seller and and a background check for the buyer, contractors can get semi automatics for feral pig culling, my neighbour here has an arsenal of weapons for shooting at all distances out to 5,000+ yards (yes, ULR five thousand yard shooting is a thing here). The USofA isn't at all united wrt gun regulation. Twue patriots seem to love moving weapons across state lines and arming conflict areas for profit, no real readily accessed central database, tip toeing around removing weapons from domestic violence offenders who can readily replace what, if anything, is taken. Australia once held the world record for victims of a single mass shooter - we've had nothing remotely like that since uniform regulation and enforcement.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  [flagged]
wharvle 3y ago
> Unfortunately history has shown us time and time again that oppressive leaders disarm their populations before subjecting them to horrific abuses of their power. We aren't falling for it again. I would (no sarcasm) love a link to any resources you know of that catalogue or chronicle the role of private arms in preserving liberal democracy. Big bonus if the resources are, or lean, academic.
Loughla 3y ago
You do understand you are a literal example of what OP was talking about, right? The Politics in this one are just too strong to sway anyone at all, regardless of what the argument is. You prove their point entirely.
- theonething 3y ago
  I didn't read the GP comment as political, but using logic and referencing facts to support their point. e.g. > I will advocate for armed guards at schools to help dissuade would-be shooters from attempting anything. I would also advocate for the abolition of "Gun-Free Zones" as they only advertise to criminals that nobody is likely to be armed in these areas. That seems logical to me. Who will adhere to Gun-Free Zones? Only law abiding citizens. The murderers will walk in there with a gun or a machete and do their thing knowing there won't be anyone equipped to effectively stop them. Yes, the population at large will politicize these issues, but in the context of this discussion here on HN, why not try to be better and avoid politics as much as possible. Instead, discuss on the basis of logic and facts. I think HN in general, does this better than other online forums (e.g. Reddit). Not perfect of course, but better. That you right off the bat accuse the GP of being political for expressing a viewpoint and supporting their arguments with logic and facts inhibits open discussion and ironically is a catalyst for politicization of the issue.
  - Loughla 3y ago
    It's literally an argument about guns. The poster literally said pictures of dead kids wouldn't change their minds, and then made pro-gun comments. On a thread that was supposed to be about how guns are so political that no one will ever change their minds. That was my point. I don't care if they argued with logic. They were making the point for op by just entirely skipping past the original argument (gun is political and no one is changing their minds) to talk about their stance on guns. That was my point. I think maybe you missed it?
    - theonething 3y ago
      To me, politically encamped means that you have decided upon a viewpoint without much thought. You sway one way because it's the position of your "camp" or tribe. And because of that you won't change your mind. "pictures of dead kids wouldn't change their minds" does not necessarily fit the definition of political encampment. If they won't change their mind because it would go against their party's line then they are being political. If they won't change their mind because they believe their stance is correct (based on logic, facts, morality, etc) and/or the other alternatives are wrong (based on logic, facts, morality, etc) then that is not political. I guess your saw encampment in the GP's comment? I didn't.
robin_reala 3y ago
[flagged]
- gillytech 3y ago
  [flagged]
- User23 3y ago
  Perhaps you should get your information someplace other than lying left wing partisans masquerading as comedians? Here[1] is the actual data. The USA's firearms homicides are higher than I'd like, but are by no means the world leader. [1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-death...
  - twixfel 3y ago
    Pretty sure they're talking about school shootings, which have been totally normalised in the USA, and arguably now as core a part of USAnian culture as apple pie or baseball.
    - gillytech 3y ago
      School shootings in the USA have not been normalized at all. Our institutions and social degradation have caused these mass violence events. We've had an armed populace with very powerful guns for a long, long time. The elevated violence is not date coincident with more guns. Psychotropic drugs are though.
      - manuelabeledo 3y ago
        > The elevated violence is not date coincident with more guns. Psychotropic drugs are though. Most common drugs nowadays were already widely available back in the 70s.
        InSteady 3y ago
highwind 3y ago
oppressive leaders -> disarm their populations doesn't imply disarm their populations -> oppressive leaders I can think of 2 oppressive leaders who tried to disarm but I know of dozens of democratic countries that disarmed their population without any abuse.
bitwize 3y ago
[flagged]
- gillytech 3y ago
  Can you please explain your source for this work of fiction? Regardless, the 2nd Amendment will not be repealed in our lifetimes and that's a fact.
  - jhallenworld 3y ago
    There is a book... https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers... "It was in response to the concerns coming out of the Virginia ratification convention for the Constitution, led by Patrick Henry and George Mason, that a militia that was controlled solely by the federal government would not be there to protect the slave owners from an enslaved uprising. And ... James Madison crafted that language in order to mollify the concerns coming out of Virginia and the anti-Federalists, that they would still have full control over their state militias — and those militias were used in order to quell slave revolts. ... The Second Amendment really provided the cover, the assurances that Patrick Henry and George Mason needed, that the militias would not be controlled by the federal government, but that they would be controlled by the states and at the beck and call of the states to be able to put down these uprisings"
  - InSteady 3y ago
    A lot of people thought the same about Roe v Wade. Or the 4th amendment which has been disregarded time and again in the name of safety. In any case, reasonable and effective gun control can be enacted without repealing the 2nd.
- throwawa14223 3y ago
  That's a generic fallacy.
- stodor89 3y ago
  The Swiss also have a lot of guns.
manuelabeledo 3y ago
> Unfortunately history has shown us time and time again that oppressive leaders disarm their populations before subjecting them to horrific abuses of their power. We aren't falling for it again. Oppressive leaders have historically used armed paramilitary guerrillas in order to topple legitimate governments and establish brutal dictatorships, so what is your point here? Also, various US governments, at several levels, have demonstrated over and over again that they don't fear armed civilians at all, e.g. the 1985 MOVE bombing [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing
paulddraper 3y ago
"But think of the children!"
indigochill 3y ago
> Unfortunately history has shown us time and time again that oppressive leaders disarm their populations before subjecting them to horrific abuses of their power. We aren't falling for it again. You've (collectively) already fallen for it by allowing the government to develop a standing army (and not just any standing army, but possibly the most capable in the world of crushing any dissent even if it happens halfway across the globe). As James Madison put it in 1787, "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty." Or Samuel Adams called it, "always dangerous to the Liberties of the People." https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24671 https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/...
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  [flagged]
- SheepSlapper 3y ago
  > You've (collectively) already fallen for it by allowing the government to develop a standing army (and not just any standing army, but possibly the most capable in the world of crushing any dissent even if it happens halfway across the globe). The military is a non-factor in this, for a lot of reasons. Here are a few: - What percentage of our armed forces will take their oath to the constitution (not the government) seriously, and will desert/change sides when asked to murder their own people? I expect a lot, but even if zero of them bailed, that's the least of the issues with trying to fight your own citizens... - What good is all of that military hardware against yourself? Tanks, jets, drones, missiles... sure, you can turn major cities to glass but then what the hell do you even rule over? The US military is great at crushing dissent across the globe because the collateral damage has been deemed acceptable (by us, because we're not THERE). If you start doing any of that shit here, public sentiment will turn on you fast and you'll make millions of domestic enemies instantly. - The US has 400 million people (ish) and just as many guns (again, ish). The US military is like 2 million, including reserves. Say 90% of people refuse to fight, well that still makes it 40 million vs 2 million. Those odds SUCK. And that's without anyone refusing orders and bailing to the other side (bring some of the hardware with ya!). - This wouldn't be a traditional war, it would look like all the wars (ahem, military actions) that the US lost and continues to lose. Vietnam. Afghanistan. Our military keeps taking an L to dudes with 40 year old surplus rifles and busted Toyota trucks. Because that style of warfare is asymmetric and HARD to do without creating new enemies at every turn. There is no version of a civil war that ends well for an established US government trying to subjugate its people BECAUSE of the 2nd amendment. Either rule over piles of glowing, radioactive rubble, or face the reality that it's open season on anything in a uniform and you're outnumbered 200:1 BUT you don't even know who you're fighting until you're already getting shot at. That's the intent of the 2nd, the US military doesn't actually pose a threat to its people because it simply can't win. That being said... the US government knows all of this, and is just boiling the frog instead. Small oversteps over a long period of time add up to some real nonsense, and I'm not sure your average American has the balls to stand up, say "enough is enough", and push back. Old us threw the damn tea into the ocean (in front of the bastards!), current us will go on an angry rant on X while ordering Doordash. There will be more governmental overreach, there will be more boiling the frog, and who knows how it'll end. But the US military isn't remotely a factor.
InSteady 3y ago
It sounds like you've been reading NRA / gun lobby talking points quite carefully as you're hitting all the major bullet points. >In fact, murder is illegal in this country, as is assault and brandishing firearms. These laws don't stop insane people from using weapons to murder people. This is exactly the point. Ease of access to firearms for people who are unhinged is a problem. We aren't typically talking about criminals btw. We are talking about mass murderers. It is a very meaningful distinction. Armed guards at elementary schools is insane. What about churches? Grocery stores? Music venues? Do we need heavily armed guards in every public place in society? This will heal our increasingly fractured society? Are militarized police forces (that are still scared to go in after active shooters) not enough for you? >Researchers at JAMA Network Open found that of 133 incidents of K-12 school shootings from 1980 to 2019, 1 in 4 had an armed guard on scene. Moreover, researchers found the presence of armed guards failed to result in fewer casualties, instead noting a death rate 2.83 times greater in school shootings with armed personnel... >the data suggest no association between having an armed officer and deterrence of violence in these cases. An armed officer on the scene was the number one factor associated with increased casualties after the perpetrators’ use of assault rifles or submachine guns. [1] [1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2776515 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
theGnuMe 3y ago
Your gun isn't going to protect you from the government.
- gorbachev 3y ago
  100% If the Government decides you are a threat, they will take you down. Some overweight Sunday warrior with an assault rifle is not going to save us from tyranny. The way you protect the country against that is to promote democracy and vote for people who aren't trying to overthrow the Government if they lose an election.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    I would agree, but the evidence is that this isn't really true. Waco and Ruby ridge are examples of the government deciding someone was a threat and their guns allowed them to have considerable political impact. Yes, they were taken down, but their actions drastically weakened gun control in this country.
- AngryData 3y ago
  Individually? No. Collectively? Then I would say it does. Will it cost tons of lives? Yeah of course. But the US cannot bomb its own civilians into a functioning economy or obedient populous. The only force even remotely in a position the challenge the US military is the US population.

doctor_eval 3y ago

[flagged]

baz00 3y ago

Um, fine over here in the UK. I mean our entire yearly list of shootings is a bad Saturday night in Chicago. And before anyone says "what about the stabbings", our per capita stabbings are about half the US!

RobertRoberts 3y ago
You can go to jail in the UK for a drunk tweet on X (twitter). That is not a free society at it's core. Your other freedoms are breath away from being all gone.
- baz00 3y ago
  Amazing that a US colleague of mine was fired for saying "fuck" to another US colleague. Really free country that with protected speech... When people say freedom in the US it tends to be people free to be assholes to their fellow countrymen. Edit: I have freedom from not being shot in the face in Costco too! That's my favourite freedom.
  - RobertRoberts 3y ago
    Freedom of speech is about liberty of life, not liberty of opportunity. Two totally different things.
    - baz00 3y ago
      What do you think I can't say here? And why was my colleague fired? Surely his speech was protected?
      - vdqtp3 3y ago
        Why don't you just Google "uk man arrested for tweet" and you'll find plenty. From the Verge[1]: Section 127 of the Communications Act makes it an offense to send public messages of a “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character,” [1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/7/22912054/uk-grossly-offensive-tweet-prosecution-section-127-2003-communications-act https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/7/22912054/uk-grossly-offens...
        baz00 3y ago
        Yeah actually read the tweets. They were grossly offensive, threatening violence and nasty as hell. You think that's ok? One of them for reference: "kill yourself before I do; rape is the last of your worries; I’ve just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried.”
        vdqtp3 3y ago
        Do I think threats are acceptable, no - and true threats aren't considered protected free speech. ("true threats first amendment" would be your search term, should you like to learn more) Do I think offensive, nasty, hateful speech is free speech? Absolutely. Here's an example of one that I think is an egregious violation of the principle of free speech: https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-sentenced-grossly-offensive-tweet-tom-moore-joseph-kelly https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-...
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  > You can go to jail in the UK for a drunk tweet on X (twitter). That is not a free society at it's core. You could go to jail in the US for a myriad of things that aren't even crimes in the UK. Public urination, for instance. And the US incarceration rate is 4x that of the UK. Not sure which country is more "free".
  - gillytech 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - manuelabeledo 3y ago
      One of the first Anglo colonizers who also fought in the war of independence, what an honour! Jokes aside, it wouldn't hurt to have a more sensible penitentiary and reformation system.
- LAC-Tech 3y ago
  While that's true - in fact you are if anything downplaying the UKs lack of free speech, as people are convicted for far less - it's not very germane to the UK having lower homicide rates. I feel like most of us want to live in societies with freedom of speech and low homicide rates, and don't feel it has to be one or the other.
- gusgus01 3y ago
  You can in the US too. Although I'm not sure if he was drunk. https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/oklahomacity/press-releases/2010/ok020210.htm https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/oklahomacity/press-release...
- fzeroracer 3y ago
  Have you had many interactions with the police? Like been pulled over, contacted or harassed? Because for quite a few people in the US they don't have as much freedom as you might think.
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    Assuming that most people who truly believe that the US is a beacon of freedom to the world, are, at the very least, mildly informed about current events, it is astonishing how they bend reality to fit these beliefs. The US has one of the highest prison population per capita in the world. It also arguably has some of the most heavily armed, most unchecked, police forces in the western hemisphere. And here we are, with some arguing that saying nazi shit on Twitter is "proof of freedom".
paulddraper 3y ago
Could that be the result of different socioeconomic, racial, and cultural circumstances? Or is just hardware?
- foldr 3y ago
  Pick your favorite race and check the stats for race-on-race shootings in the US. You'll surely find that it's more than the population-adjusted equivalent the ~30 gun killings we get per year in the UK. Race obviously isn't the key factor here. I do wonder why you would even bring it up. I could also mention that London, which is comparably racially diverse to many major US cities, has far less gun violence than any of them.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - foldr 3y ago
      [flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- defrost 3y ago
  Uniform regulation across an entire country makes a hell of a difference. The EU has a uniform gun regulation zone, the UK has even enforcement, Australia didn't "ban guns" it simply made a few low population territories and states adopt the same regulations as other high population states had; 12 year olds can join gun clubs, every sale requires a registered seller and and a background check for the buyer, contractors can get semi automatics for feral pig culling, my neighbour here has an arsenal of weapons for shooting at all distances out to 5,000+ yards (yes, ULR five thousand yard shooting is a thing here). The USofA isn't at all united wrt gun regulation. Twue patriots seem to love moving weapons across state lines and arming conflict areas for profit, no real readily accessed central database, tip toeing around removing weapons from domestic violence offenders who can readily replace what, if anything, is taken. Australia once held the world record for victims of a single mass shooter - we've had nothing remotely like that since uniform regulation and enforcement.
phpisthebest 3y ago
[flagged]

wharvle 3y ago

> Unfortunately history has shown us time and time again that oppressive leaders disarm their populations before subjecting them to horrific abuses of their power. We aren't falling for it again. I would (no sarcasm) love a link to any resources you know of that catalogue or chronicle the role of private arms in preserving liberal democracy. Big bonus if the resources are, or lean, academic.

Loughla 3y ago

You do understand you are a literal example of what OP was talking about, right? The Politics in this one are just too strong to sway anyone at all, regardless of what the argument is. You prove their point entirely.

theonething 3y ago
I didn't read the GP comment as political, but using logic and referencing facts to support their point. e.g. > I will advocate for armed guards at schools to help dissuade would-be shooters from attempting anything. I would also advocate for the abolition of "Gun-Free Zones" as they only advertise to criminals that nobody is likely to be armed in these areas. That seems logical to me. Who will adhere to Gun-Free Zones? Only law abiding citizens. The murderers will walk in there with a gun or a machete and do their thing knowing there won't be anyone equipped to effectively stop them. Yes, the population at large will politicize these issues, but in the context of this discussion here on HN, why not try to be better and avoid politics as much as possible. Instead, discuss on the basis of logic and facts. I think HN in general, does this better than other online forums (e.g. Reddit). Not perfect of course, but better. That you right off the bat accuse the GP of being political for expressing a viewpoint and supporting their arguments with logic and facts inhibits open discussion and ironically is a catalyst for politicization of the issue.
- Loughla 3y ago
  It's literally an argument about guns. The poster literally said pictures of dead kids wouldn't change their minds, and then made pro-gun comments. On a thread that was supposed to be about how guns are so political that no one will ever change their minds. That was my point. I don't care if they argued with logic. They were making the point for op by just entirely skipping past the original argument (gun is political and no one is changing their minds) to talk about their stance on guns. That was my point. I think maybe you missed it?
  - theonething 3y ago
    To me, politically encamped means that you have decided upon a viewpoint without much thought. You sway one way because it's the position of your "camp" or tribe. And because of that you won't change your mind. "pictures of dead kids wouldn't change their minds" does not necessarily fit the definition of political encampment. If they won't change their mind because it would go against their party's line then they are being political. If they won't change their mind because they believe their stance is correct (based on logic, facts, morality, etc) and/or the other alternatives are wrong (based on logic, facts, morality, etc) then that is not political. I guess your saw encampment in the GP's comment? I didn't.

robin_reala 3y ago

[flagged]

gillytech 3y ago
[flagged]
User23 3y ago
Perhaps you should get your information someplace other than lying left wing partisans masquerading as comedians? Here[1] is the actual data. The USA's firearms homicides are higher than I'd like, but are by no means the world leader. [1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-death...
- twixfel 3y ago
  Pretty sure they're talking about school shootings, which have been totally normalised in the USA, and arguably now as core a part of USAnian culture as apple pie or baseball.
  - gillytech 3y ago
    School shootings in the USA have not been normalized at all. Our institutions and social degradation have caused these mass violence events. We've had an armed populace with very powerful guns for a long, long time. The elevated violence is not date coincident with more guns. Psychotropic drugs are though.
    - manuelabeledo 3y ago
      > The elevated violence is not date coincident with more guns. Psychotropic drugs are though. Most common drugs nowadays were already widely available back in the 70s.
      - InSteady 3y ago

highwind 3y ago

oppressive leaders -> disarm their populations doesn't imply disarm their populations -> oppressive leaders I can think of 2 oppressive leaders who tried to disarm but I know of dozens of democratic countries that disarmed their population without any abuse.

bitwize 3y ago

[flagged]

gillytech 3y ago
Can you please explain your source for this work of fiction? Regardless, the 2nd Amendment will not be repealed in our lifetimes and that's a fact.
- jhallenworld 3y ago
  There is a book... https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers... "It was in response to the concerns coming out of the Virginia ratification convention for the Constitution, led by Patrick Henry and George Mason, that a militia that was controlled solely by the federal government would not be there to protect the slave owners from an enslaved uprising. And ... James Madison crafted that language in order to mollify the concerns coming out of Virginia and the anti-Federalists, that they would still have full control over their state militias — and those militias were used in order to quell slave revolts. ... The Second Amendment really provided the cover, the assurances that Patrick Henry and George Mason needed, that the militias would not be controlled by the federal government, but that they would be controlled by the states and at the beck and call of the states to be able to put down these uprisings"
- InSteady 3y ago
  A lot of people thought the same about Roe v Wade. Or the 4th amendment which has been disregarded time and again in the name of safety. In any case, reasonable and effective gun control can be enacted without repealing the 2nd.
throwawa14223 3y ago
That's a generic fallacy.
stodor89 3y ago
The Swiss also have a lot of guns.

manuelabeledo 3y ago

> Unfortunately history has shown us time and time again that oppressive leaders disarm their populations before subjecting them to horrific abuses of their power. We aren't falling for it again. Oppressive leaders have historically used armed paramilitary guerrillas in order to topple legitimate governments and establish brutal dictatorships, so what is your point here? Also, various US governments, at several levels, have demonstrated over and over again that they don't fear armed civilians at all, e.g. the 1985 MOVE bombing [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing

paulddraper 3y ago

"But think of the children!"

indigochill 3y ago

> Unfortunately history has shown us time and time again that oppressive leaders disarm their populations before subjecting them to horrific abuses of their power. We aren't falling for it again. You've (collectively) already fallen for it by allowing the government to develop a standing army (and not just any standing army, but possibly the most capable in the world of crushing any dissent even if it happens halfway across the globe). As James Madison put it in 1787, "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty." Or Samuel Adams called it, "always dangerous to the Liberties of the People." https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24671 https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/...

phpisthebest 3y ago
[flagged]
SheepSlapper 3y ago
> You've (collectively) already fallen for it by allowing the government to develop a standing army (and not just any standing army, but possibly the most capable in the world of crushing any dissent even if it happens halfway across the globe). The military is a non-factor in this, for a lot of reasons. Here are a few: - What percentage of our armed forces will take their oath to the constitution (not the government) seriously, and will desert/change sides when asked to murder their own people? I expect a lot, but even if zero of them bailed, that's the least of the issues with trying to fight your own citizens... - What good is all of that military hardware against yourself? Tanks, jets, drones, missiles... sure, you can turn major cities to glass but then what the hell do you even rule over? The US military is great at crushing dissent across the globe because the collateral damage has been deemed acceptable (by us, because we're not THERE). If you start doing any of that shit here, public sentiment will turn on you fast and you'll make millions of domestic enemies instantly. - The US has 400 million people (ish) and just as many guns (again, ish). The US military is like 2 million, including reserves. Say 90% of people refuse to fight, well that still makes it 40 million vs 2 million. Those odds SUCK. And that's without anyone refusing orders and bailing to the other side (bring some of the hardware with ya!). - This wouldn't be a traditional war, it would look like all the wars (ahem, military actions) that the US lost and continues to lose. Vietnam. Afghanistan. Our military keeps taking an L to dudes with 40 year old surplus rifles and busted Toyota trucks. Because that style of warfare is asymmetric and HARD to do without creating new enemies at every turn. There is no version of a civil war that ends well for an established US government trying to subjugate its people BECAUSE of the 2nd amendment. Either rule over piles of glowing, radioactive rubble, or face the reality that it's open season on anything in a uniform and you're outnumbered 200:1 BUT you don't even know who you're fighting until you're already getting shot at. That's the intent of the 2nd, the US military doesn't actually pose a threat to its people because it simply can't win. That being said... the US government knows all of this, and is just boiling the frog instead. Small oversteps over a long period of time add up to some real nonsense, and I'm not sure your average American has the balls to stand up, say "enough is enough", and push back. Old us threw the damn tea into the ocean (in front of the bastards!), current us will go on an angry rant on X while ordering Doordash. There will be more governmental overreach, there will be more boiling the frog, and who knows how it'll end. But the US military isn't remotely a factor.

InSteady 3y ago

It sounds like you've been reading NRA / gun lobby talking points quite carefully as you're hitting all the major bullet points. >In fact, murder is illegal in this country, as is assault and brandishing firearms. These laws don't stop insane people from using weapons to murder people. This is exactly the point. Ease of access to firearms for people who are unhinged is a problem. We aren't typically talking about criminals btw. We are talking about mass murderers. It is a very meaningful distinction. Armed guards at elementary schools is insane. What about churches? Grocery stores? Music venues? Do we need heavily armed guards in every public place in society? This will heal our increasingly fractured society? Are militarized police forces (that are still scared to go in after active shooters) not enough for you? >Researchers at JAMA Network Open found that of 133 incidents of K-12 school shootings from 1980 to 2019, 1 in 4 had an armed guard on scene. Moreover, researchers found the presence of armed guards failed to result in fewer casualties, instead noting a death rate 2.83 times greater in school shootings with armed personnel... >the data suggest no association between having an armed officer and deterrence of violence in these cases. An armed officer on the scene was the number one factor associated with increased casualties after the perpetrators’ use of assault rifles or submachine guns. [1] [1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2776515 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

theGnuMe 3y ago

Your gun isn't going to protect you from the government.

gorbachev 3y ago
100% If the Government decides you are a threat, they will take you down. Some overweight Sunday warrior with an assault rifle is not going to save us from tyranny. The way you protect the country against that is to promote democracy and vote for people who aren't trying to overthrow the Government if they lose an election.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  I would agree, but the evidence is that this isn't really true. Waco and Ruby ridge are examples of the government deciding someone was a threat and their guns allowed them to have considerable political impact. Yes, they were taken down, but their actions drastically weakened gun control in this country.
AngryData 3y ago
Individually? No. Collectively? Then I would say it does. Will it cost tons of lives? Yeah of course. But the US cannot bomb its own civilians into a functioning economy or obedient populous. The only force even remotely in a position the challenge the US military is the US population.