6 ms·

> remember, even in Japan somebody could make some kind of battery ignited home-made shotgun and kill Shinzo Abe. Countries with strict gun control enjoy far l

• Group_B 1y ago
  I think it's simply too late for real gun control in the US. Like how would that ever be enforced? There's too many guns already, and we have too many people down south that would be happy to smuggle guns back up North. And trying to control the ammo would be even more unrealistic. The gun culture America created over the past 100+ years is a massive mistake, and I don't think there is any undoing of it. Should have been more control immediately post WWII imo.
  • rcpt 1y ago
    A lot of stuff would not happen if it took a little more effort. Giving people some extra time to second guess themselves is a big deal.
    • artificialLimbs 1y ago
      This problem didn't happen in the 50s and 60s, when people brought their guns to school for funsies.
      • paulryanrogers 1y ago
        Actually it did, just without so much press.
  • danpalmer 1y ago
    I'm not from the US so I only have an outsider's view of the culture, and FWIW I'm also not from Australia although I have emigrated here now. Australia seemed to have a deeper relationship with guns previously, that stemmed partially out of necessity (farming etc), but there are also a lot of parallels with US culture here – the American dream, being a colony hundreds of years ago, etc, some focus on personal rights and freedoms, being a federation of states, etc. I don't think it was as deep a relationship as the US, but coming from the UK it seemed that Australia had a very different view than the UK. Australia turned this all around. The culture shifted, and people realised that for the greater good it was something they needed to get past, and they did. Maybe there's hope for US gun control yet, although the turning point for Australia was a (single) mass shooting. Maybe the US needs a much bigger turning point. I'm a little surprised that the Las Vegas shooting a while ago didn't provide that.
    • hn_acc1 1y ago
      [flagged]
    • grier 1y ago
      I live in the US. I don't hold much hope in gun control changing after recent years. Recent federal and state policy is trending towards less regulation and removal of the previous administrations regulations. In 2024, estimated 16,576 deaths in the US from guns (excluding suicide, which is a very large addition on top of that), and 499 mass shootings.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • artificialLimbs 1y ago
    Worst take today. The 2nd amendment was the SECOND thing the founders put in for a reason. They just got done fighting a war against the government with WEAPONS OF WAR. It was written specifically to enable fighting against tyrannical government, which is VASTLY worse than all mass shooters combined.
    • koolba 1y ago
      Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither.
      • SideQuark 1y ago
        You should learn about the source and context of that quote. It does not mean what you think it means. For example, https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...
    • ryan_lane 1y ago
      The 2nd amendment specifies "well regulated militias", but somehow this part is always left out by gun enthusiasts. The idea was to ensure states can have militias, and that those militias would be allowed to have guns. Somehow this has been stretched by the gun lobby to "everyone should be able to have a gun with absolutely no restrictions", when that's absolutely not what is stated in the 2nd amendment.
      • svieira 1y ago
        The members of militias at the time of the ratification of the 2nd amendment were required to supply their own guns by statue, which is how you get the individual right - from the duty to be a member of the militia. Which still exists today (though in statute it is often called the "unorganized" or "state" militia to distinguish it from the National Guard, which is actually a branch of the US Army by statue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)#:~:text=In%201933%2C%20with,federal%20reserve%20force.). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)...
  • adgjlsfhk1 1y ago
    [flagged]
• codyb 1y ago
  So... if anything, this is the exact situation stricter gun laws wouldn't really prevent. Which would be the targeted assassination of a societal figure by a determined ideologue or partisan or mole. In which case you'd need a strong internal investigatory services in order to root these plots out before they happen by following up on leads and tips. Well... not to get political, but I think we're hollowing that out too?
  • msie 1y ago
    Well, you wouldn't be able to reproduce such a long-range kill with a shabbily constructed firearm. You would have to be up close, which would be harder to do.
  • komali2 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • artificialLimbs 1y ago
      [flagged]
  • potato3732842 1y ago
    >strong internal investigatory services in order to root these plots out before they happen Who will necessarily be so strong they'll be capable of pulling such things off to serve their own ends. It's an intractable problem all the way down.
  • paulryanrogers 1y ago
    > So... if anything, this is the exact situation stricter gun laws wouldn't really prevent. Which would be the targeted assassination of a societal figure by a determined ideologue or partisan or mole. My point isn't that outlawing guns would stop every possible scenario. Rather it would make killings of all kinds far less likely, which is a win for everyone--even hate-spewing pundits.
    • SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
• throwaway48476 1y ago
  No one wants to get stabbed either.
  • jbboehr 1y ago
    Or run over by a van.
• artificialLimbs 1y ago
  [flagged]
  • torstenvl 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • paulryanrogers 1y ago
      [flagged]
• tekknik 1y ago
  > Countries with strict gun control enjoy far lower rates of firearm accidents, suicides, and murders. So let’s define what your definition of strict gun control is. Also, if you want people to care more, stop including suicides because it drastically changes the numbers.
  • paulryanrogers 1y ago
    Suicide would be more rare if guns didn't make it so easy.
    • Shocka1 1y ago
      I see where you are going there, but I'm not so sure that rings true. Not to get too dark, but IIRC, Japan has higher suicide rates. And most are non-gun methods, like hanging, throwing oneself in front of a train, etc.
      • seanmcdirmid 1y ago
        Are you sure you don’t mean South Korea? Japan is about at level with the USA, and actually lower since 2024.
        • Shocka1 1y ago
          I did not check into SK, but Japan has consistently been about the same or higher with the US for many years. Even with a drop in the last year, still very similar to one another. The purpose of my original comment was that the US dwindles Japan in firearms, but Japanese still manage to kill themselves just fine. So it's not a strong point by the parent I responded to. If Japan maintained that decrease for several more years, I think this would be worth revisiting, but for now it doesn't have much weight.
          • seanmcdirmid 1y ago
            South Korea is really high. Japan used be high but is much lower now (comparable to the USA). You can make your point more quickly today with South Korea’s suicide rate, which is really really bad. Mental health is important, the higher suicide rates in red states could just be about them being more depressed (eg from higher poverty, or overwork?) and having less access to mental health resources than just having more access to guns. Poverty might explain it, which is why New Mexico (the poorest blue state) is so high, but then you have Utah which is usually the exception red state, and Colorado, which is a richer blue state, in the 20/100k list. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States Note that Montana, the worst state for suicide, is about the same as South Korea at 28/100k. I say this sadly as having had a friend kill herself in High School via a gun her dad had lying around. And ya, it was a red state (Mississippi).
• coderenegade 1y ago
  And when those countries run into issues because the government is incompetent, people start wishing they had guns again. It's all well and good to give up guns when the system works, but when it doesn't, you lose self determination. Japan is, famously, a country where the system generally works. Hell, a late train would get you a letter for your boss. It's a bit different in places where the police don't have the resources, or dangerous individuals aren't removed from the public.
  • paulryanrogers 1y ago
    Is it guns that keep governments honest and responsive to the populace? Or is it a culture of trust, honesty, and non-violence? Yemen is in second place for guns per person. How responsive is their government to the people?
    • coderenegade 1y ago
      My post wasn't about keeping the government honest, it was about the individual's right to protect themselves from anyone, including the government. Guns empower the individual to defend themselves without having to rely on the effective intervention of government, because they're an equalizer. This matters when the government loses effectiveness, either because resources are stretched thin (so, ineffective policing) or because incompetence or ideology creeps in (the judiciary does a poor job of removing dangerous individuals from the public). In places with effective governance, guns aren't really necessary, and it's tempting to trade them in for a small gain in security. The issue is that governments change over time, and effective systems can become ineffective. When that happens, people suddenly find themselves wanting guns again. The debate over guns actually hinges on the extent to which the individual should be empowered to defend themselves, and historically, it hasn't just been about guns, but about all weapons, and even martial arts (which have also been banned at various points in history). Governments don't like to empower the individual, because they want to maintain a monopoly over violence (for many practical reasons), and because empowering individuals often creates its own set of trust problems (which is true for anything -- how many drivers are trustworthy, for example). Defenseless individuals are easier to govern from an administrative perspective, and if a government is good at protecting the populace from threats, it works. In fact, it can be better for the population as a whole, at least while the government is competent. But life is messy, and there are points where individuals need to defend themselves. As systems break down, not only does the need increase, but also the effectiveness of the means, because the threats you have to defend yourself against by definition don't play by the rules. This, imo, is the real point of the second amendment. The Bill of Rights is essentially a declaration that certain rights are derived from a higher authority than government, which is why they are inalienable. No one needs permission to defend themselves, and it's my belief that the right to bear arms was put in there to ensure that should the system fail or become ineffective, the people would still be able to exercise one of their most fundamental natural rights. It certainly wasn't an accident, because it was the second thing that they added. The verbiage around government and militias makes sense in the context of having just fought a war of independence, but it also makes sense when you consider that it's often well-meaning governments that take this right away.
• SideQuark 1y ago
  Japan has strict gun control and an extremely high rate of suicide. The US has more homicides per capita by simply beating someone to death by ones bare hands than many countries have total homicide rate (check data in FBI UCR). Restricting suicides and homicides to only those with guns is a dishonest comparison when the rates without the gun restriction are more useful and flip the outcomes of the discussion. I doubt a murder by non-gun is fundamentally different to a family or society than one by a gun, or any other method. The Obama CDC study on gun control concluded that guns are used to stop far more crimes than they are used for in crimes. It concluded that a household with a gun saw far less bad outcomes than a household without during home invasions. It concluded a lot of things that didn't sit well with the left, so after all the fanfare to make it, it was downplayed by that admin. Read it, it's quite interesting. Think through that a bit.
  • paulryanrogers 1y ago
    > The Obama CDC study on gun control concluded that guns are used to stop far more crimes than they are used for in crimes. Citation please. NCVS data puts defensive gun use around 70K instances per year while OJP.gov data puts firearm crimes in the 400K range.