5 ms·

Is the gun situation hopeless in America? As far as I can tell, we just need to reduce the quantity of guns. Somehow 20% of the country takes that idea as an ex

Is the gun situation hopeless in America? As far as I can tell, we just need to reduce the quantity of guns. Somehow 20% of the country takes that idea as an existential threat, even though not doing so is a material threat to real people. If it's actually a mental health crisis, then how do we solve that one? Especially with what the Republicans are doing right now?

blibble 10mo ago
the guns don't even seem to work for their supposed primary purpose uninvited and unwanted federal troops are roaming around cities against the wishes of state governors so seems the US has the worst of both worlds: unqualified morons owning assault weapons, plus the tyranny
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
miltonlost 10mo ago
Because you have Republicmas idiotically saying "Guns don't kill people; people do" and then don't do anything about the people or the guns. Conservative gun owners simply accept that people must die by guns in order for them to feel safe and make us all more vulnerable because of their irrational fears. They're babies with weapons.
- stephenhuey 10mo ago
  That's simplistic. Actually, to better understand the situation you must follow the money. Many 2nd Amendment supporters are reasonable, but unfortunately, over decades their casual support has been utilized by lobbyists whose goals do not necessarily align with many supporters. The challenge is to communicate that message in a way that reaches everyone.
  - WhyOhWhyQ 10mo ago
    We just need to reduce the number of guns. I've not met a 2nd amendment supporter who understands this basic idea. They are always convinced one of the following retorts should be the end of the conversation (they also proudly think you've never heard these cliched arguments): - They have knife stabbings in China. (Yes. A gun is more lethal.) - A bad guy can still get a gun. (Yes.) - Hand guns are more dangerous than rifles. (This means let's reduce both.) - The gun doesn't kill people. People kill people. (This means let's reduce how many people have guns.) - Mass shootings aren't the majority of gun deaths. (Let's reduce the total gun deaths and mass shootings then.) Come up with as many ridiculous retorts as you like. If you had reduced the total number of guns, most of the shootings could not have happened.
    - _menelaus 10mo ago
      Don't you think the populace needs to be armed though? I think its a given that eventually the government will be intolerably corrupt and a revolution will be necessary. Nobody denies that less guns -> less shootings. The logic is that some amount of shootings are tolerable to preserve democracy, and that if our goal is to reduce mass shootings, social reforms intended to improve mental health are the correct choice. Imagine you are in charge of a monkey enclosure. The monkeys sometimes go crazy and kill each other with rocks. You can: A: Remove all rocks. Monkeys stay suicidally miserable but can't inflict harm as easily. Problem solved? B: Mitigate conditions that make them suicidally miserable. Some say its impossible, but then again, just a generation ago the monkeys had rocks without frequent violence.
      - WhyOhWhyQ 10mo ago
        Why is it that only our country needs to be armed, but none of the others do? Do Germans need to be armed? Do Indians need to be armed? Maybe you could argue that Chinese people need to be armed, but every Chinese person I've met seems to like their government right now and is content with the levels of surveillance. Maybe arming the Uyghurs could have helped but somehow I doubt it.
jasonlotito 10mo ago
The thing I think about is that, as far as the two major parties are concerned, they both support denying Americans the right to bear arms, and they both support gun control. The difference is that one party won't admit to it, making any debate difficult or impossible. On the flip side, I feel like the two parties see things differently: One party is mostly about prevention, while the other side is predominantly about punishment. > If it's actually a mental health crisis, That's the scapegoat. It's an easy scapegoat because it blames others. And others are easy to hate. They aren't us. "They" are others. Yes, mental health is an issue, but it's not so much higher than in other nations to explain the much higher rate. It's a scapegoat because it's easy to say, "Wow, no normal person would do that, so they must be crazy." That sounds reasonable if you don't think about it for a moment.
- WhyOhWhyQ 10mo ago
  I think it's a scapegoat, but I want to give the scapegoaters a chance to show their asses, and I mean show whatever study they've got to see if there's anything there.
Ajedi32 10mo ago
Since 1791, the right to be armed has been considered a fundamental human right in the US, on the same level as freedom of speech and religion. You're fighting an uphill battle by trying to argue we should take away people's fundamental human rights in the name of public safety. To many, it's essentially no different from if you were trying to argue we should take away people's rights to free speech because some people use that right to promote violence. Whether you think that makes the gun situation "hopeless" depends on whether you think there are other ways to reduce violence without taking away the rights of law abiding citizens.
- WhyOhWhyQ 10mo ago
  The more fundamental human right is the right to not be blasted by an angry teenager who's been reading crazy things on the internet. In the hierarchy of human rights, that once has precedence.
  - Ajedi32 10mo ago
    So we should take away people's rights to "read crazy things on the internet" then, right? Because the right to not be killed is more important. Do you see the problem with that sort of thinking?
    - WhyOhWhyQ 10mo ago
      You can misread what I wrote and argue against all that strawman all day if you like. You haven't even represented the true content of the 2nd amendment so there's nothing to talk about here. The 2nd amendment is about militias, not "give everyone and their toddler access to massive fire power at all times". "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Tell me where that says guns should be available to deranged person who wants one. Everyone should get a hand gun, a rifle, and a shotgun, and make it double.
      - Ajedi32 10mo ago
beAbU 10mo ago
Presumably these shootings are done with the guns of parents/friends? How else is it possible for a school kid to get access to firearms so easily? I think the solution is to make it difficult for underage kids (U21's) to access guns so easily. And maybe start fostering some healthy habits and relationships by starting with the young. In countries with rational gun laws the owner is held fully responsible for everything their guns do, until they declare it stolen/lost. And then an inquest is held to determine if the owner was negligent in allowing the firearm to be lost/stolen in the first place. Subsequently, guns are either kept on the person of the owner (in the case of a handgun), or they are locked away in a Proper Safe (not a filing cabinet that's painted black ffs).
dogleash 10mo ago
>If it's actually a mental health crisis If? The institution you use to socialize your youth results in some attempting to murder their co-participants. Even if you took away the guns so they couldn't follow-through, why are your schools fucking up child rearing so badly in the first place?
- WhyOhWhyQ 10mo ago
  Okay how do you want to solve that? If it's by making the schools better I'm all for it. Why is it that the people who love guns vote to defund the schools though?

blibble 10mo ago

the guns don't even seem to work for their supposed primary purpose uninvited and unwanted federal troops are roaming around cities against the wishes of state governors so seems the US has the worst of both worlds: unqualified morons owning assault weapons, plus the tyranny

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]

miltonlost 10mo ago

Because you have Republicmas idiotically saying "Guns don't kill people; people do" and then don't do anything about the people or the guns. Conservative gun owners simply accept that people must die by guns in order for them to feel safe and make us all more vulnerable because of their irrational fears. They're babies with weapons.

stephenhuey 10mo ago
That's simplistic. Actually, to better understand the situation you must follow the money. Many 2nd Amendment supporters are reasonable, but unfortunately, over decades their casual support has been utilized by lobbyists whose goals do not necessarily align with many supporters. The challenge is to communicate that message in a way that reaches everyone.
- WhyOhWhyQ 10mo ago
  We just need to reduce the number of guns. I've not met a 2nd amendment supporter who understands this basic idea. They are always convinced one of the following retorts should be the end of the conversation (they also proudly think you've never heard these cliched arguments): - They have knife stabbings in China. (Yes. A gun is more lethal.) - A bad guy can still get a gun. (Yes.) - Hand guns are more dangerous than rifles. (This means let's reduce both.) - The gun doesn't kill people. People kill people. (This means let's reduce how many people have guns.) - Mass shootings aren't the majority of gun deaths. (Let's reduce the total gun deaths and mass shootings then.) Come up with as many ridiculous retorts as you like. If you had reduced the total number of guns, most of the shootings could not have happened.
  - _menelaus 10mo ago
    Don't you think the populace needs to be armed though? I think its a given that eventually the government will be intolerably corrupt and a revolution will be necessary. Nobody denies that less guns -> less shootings. The logic is that some amount of shootings are tolerable to preserve democracy, and that if our goal is to reduce mass shootings, social reforms intended to improve mental health are the correct choice. Imagine you are in charge of a monkey enclosure. The monkeys sometimes go crazy and kill each other with rocks. You can: A: Remove all rocks. Monkeys stay suicidally miserable but can't inflict harm as easily. Problem solved? B: Mitigate conditions that make them suicidally miserable. Some say its impossible, but then again, just a generation ago the monkeys had rocks without frequent violence.
    - WhyOhWhyQ 10mo ago
      Why is it that only our country needs to be armed, but none of the others do? Do Germans need to be armed? Do Indians need to be armed? Maybe you could argue that Chinese people need to be armed, but every Chinese person I've met seems to like their government right now and is content with the levels of surveillance. Maybe arming the Uyghurs could have helped but somehow I doubt it.

jasonlotito 10mo ago

The thing I think about is that, as far as the two major parties are concerned, they both support denying Americans the right to bear arms, and they both support gun control. The difference is that one party won't admit to it, making any debate difficult or impossible. On the flip side, I feel like the two parties see things differently: One party is mostly about prevention, while the other side is predominantly about punishment. > If it's actually a mental health crisis, That's the scapegoat. It's an easy scapegoat because it blames others. And others are easy to hate. They aren't us. "They" are others. Yes, mental health is an issue, but it's not so much higher than in other nations to explain the much higher rate. It's a scapegoat because it's easy to say, "Wow, no normal person would do that, so they must be crazy." That sounds reasonable if you don't think about it for a moment.

WhyOhWhyQ 10mo ago
I think it's a scapegoat, but I want to give the scapegoaters a chance to show their asses, and I mean show whatever study they've got to see if there's anything there.

Ajedi32 10mo ago

Since 1791, the right to be armed has been considered a fundamental human right in the US, on the same level as freedom of speech and religion. You're fighting an uphill battle by trying to argue we should take away people's fundamental human rights in the name of public safety. To many, it's essentially no different from if you were trying to argue we should take away people's rights to free speech because some people use that right to promote violence. Whether you think that makes the gun situation "hopeless" depends on whether you think there are other ways to reduce violence without taking away the rights of law abiding citizens.

WhyOhWhyQ 10mo ago
The more fundamental human right is the right to not be blasted by an angry teenager who's been reading crazy things on the internet. In the hierarchy of human rights, that once has precedence.
- Ajedi32 10mo ago
  So we should take away people's rights to "read crazy things on the internet" then, right? Because the right to not be killed is more important. Do you see the problem with that sort of thinking?
  - WhyOhWhyQ 10mo ago
    You can misread what I wrote and argue against all that strawman all day if you like. You haven't even represented the true content of the 2nd amendment so there's nothing to talk about here. The 2nd amendment is about militias, not "give everyone and their toddler access to massive fire power at all times". "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Tell me where that says guns should be available to deranged person who wants one. Everyone should get a hand gun, a rifle, and a shotgun, and make it double.
    - Ajedi32 10mo ago

beAbU 10mo ago

Presumably these shootings are done with the guns of parents/friends? How else is it possible for a school kid to get access to firearms so easily? I think the solution is to make it difficult for underage kids (U21's) to access guns so easily. And maybe start fostering some healthy habits and relationships by starting with the young. In countries with rational gun laws the owner is held fully responsible for everything their guns do, until they declare it stolen/lost. And then an inquest is held to determine if the owner was negligent in allowing the firearm to be lost/stolen in the first place. Subsequently, guns are either kept on the person of the owner (in the case of a handgun), or they are locked away in a Proper Safe (not a filing cabinet that's painted black ffs).

dogleash 10mo ago

>If it's actually a mental health crisis If? The institution you use to socialize your youth results in some attempting to murder their co-participants. Even if you took away the guns so they couldn't follow-through, why are your schools fucking up child rearing so badly in the first place?

WhyOhWhyQ 10mo ago
Okay how do you want to solve that? If it's by making the schools better I'm all for it. Why is it that the people who love guns vote to defund the schools though?