The problem about bringing up pedestrian deaths while getting struck by a car, is that is has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. It’s a classic case of whataboutism and is just completely irrelevant to the gun problem in the country right now.
3 Likes
People with history of mental problems and backlogs of social media messages glorifying killing people and those that kill need to be barred from events. Guns gonna stay so we have to stop the other holes that leak that lead to this shit.
1 Like
@DevilJin_01 I am watching that rant above and while I get he’s angry, he is completely missing the point. These people shooting up places aren’t little bitches acting tough. They (for the most part) are mentally ill and just aren’t right in the head. He never really addressed that in the video at all, just talking about little bitches acting tough because they have a gun.
EDIT:
I’d say that is part of it for sure, but these random acts of violence in public places aren’t typically that type that he’s talking about. But if you watch the First 48, the killings on there are a lot of what he’s talking about.
1 Like
True. These are definitely people who have problems that aren’t just about being tough. There are some genuine assholes in the community, but they are usually smart enough to just square off with fists or arcade sticks instead of resorting to the barrel of a gun.
He still makes a good point that we are unnecessarily vulnerable in these situations and more can still be done without having to wait on the weapons people
1 Like
Agreed.
But nothing will happen, other than thoughts and prayers, until the next one happens in a week or two.
1 Like
Way I see it is we have the right laws in place, but they need major revisions and iron out loopholes.
Also gun license should have a recurring competency and mental check every other year.
Lastly major reforms for mental healthcare and laws that’ll allow law enforcement and family members to actually do something when people have social media filled with guns, threats and other warning signs.
3 Likes
Would be nice. If you could force an NRA funded government to do that.
Especially since less guns would be sold as a result.
What’s really fucked up is you have concerns that a friend or family member has mental issues or you believe they can harm themselves/others police ask one thing first. Have they been diagnosed with some form of mental disability? No? Sorry their hands are tied without court order. Gotta wait till they actually do something, your grievances aren’t enough.
If a subject is of age they can’t be forced to have a mental evaluation unless they’ve already done some shit. So most fly under the radar till they snap and it’s big news for a week.
System we have in place fails people that really need it.
Mental people in other countries don’t shoot other people. I basically don’t understand why you need guns, Dime tried to explain it to me, but it still sounded crazy.
I think you’re living in a bubble there. It’s basically too late anyway, you might as well stick 30 kids on a list for random deaths each year.
I already pointed out how that’s how licenses are handled in Japan. Gotta renew every three years, and includes a psych checkup. Other countries, ones with successful gun control laws, are already doing this, too bad it’s never gonna happen in the US since most of the folks buying guns’ll probably never be able to renew their licenses if this were the case.
remember that america has stuff like bears. i think in ny state alone 100 bears are hunted each year to keep the population down. that said, im not against shotguns and rifles but im against handguns.
i think only law enforcement, security, and the military in america should have handguns, not the population. only because handguns are concealable weapons. thats what makes them dangerous.
the population can have and keep their rifles and shotguns.
just makes simple common sense.
with less concealable handguns, the police would also be less jittery and nervous and there would also be less shot by police instances due to mistakingly thinking people are carrying when they arent.
That’s exactly what I said, but that seems to be controversial.
you might be joking but it is true…
Sees like society as a whole is self centered & low-key population control…
This comparison is not useful. I have seen a left-leaning talk show guests use the same style of argument saying more people get killed by lightning than Islamic terror attacks, but comparisons like that don’t help with the problem at hand.
1 Like
Zeus >>> Allah.
How does this help the sane minority?
1 Like
As far as the government being ‘nra funded’ goes… that’s probably quite true, but there is one other detail missing from it.
There’s also the matter of voters, who in some regions have bought into a ‘moral brand’ that includes gun ownership. The republicans have been very effective at crafting, over the last few decades, a brand just like Pepsi or Coca-Cola. Their brand appeals to a moral righteousness, giving its adherents a supposed high ground.
Part of that ‘righteousness’ is the freedom to own a gun, which is ostensibly for self-defense and protecting one’s family. And to be fair, you’ll find the number of legitimate self-defense uses of a gun like that are non-zero; it’s not something you can say ‘never happens.’ I’m not sure those uses outweigh the losses, but I’ll acknowledge they do happen.
Thus you will find just enough voters in certain regions that moving to ban or restrict gun access will cause them to vote you out. These voters have bought into the moral brand presented to them, and view it as an issue of morality and freedom that they be allowed to keep their firearms.
Thus it’s not just the gun lobbies; the voters they’ve convinced over the years are part of the equation too, and would remain so for several years even if the gun lobby vanished. They would eventually decline, but not right away.
Guns don’t kill people.
People living inside the heads of people who own guns kill people.
It is if you understand what it means for your life: you are not dying from a terrorist attack whether it’d be perpetrated by an external terrorist or an internal one.
Like it oe not, the comedians were right. You’ll get run over by a shitty driver way before you find yourself caught in a mass shooting incident.
Gotta get highland that write up. Been looking up a bunch of extra info for it.
Either way, you’re odds of any one place you’re at getting shot up (as long as it isnt a gang spot in a major city) is super small. These things are terrible tragedies. They are also relatively rare. What isnt is the amount of times you’ll see it in thr news cycle.
1 Like
now if you could only convince the guy with the red dot on his chest playing madden of that.
1 Like
I have been building adjacent to one mass shooting, and within a couple of miles of another. Nevermind however many underreported drug or domestic violence shootings.
Sure, traffic accidents have a far higher body count. But the big difference is that the things we can do at this point to reduce traffic fatalities generally have significant undesirable follow-on effects, such as broad slowing of the national economy as fewer people could get to work . Whereas for certain approaches to reducing gun fatalities, the negative consequences aren’t nearly as detrimental.
That’s not me saying take away everyone’s guns, that’s just me saying that competing risk from accidents isn’t a great frame of reference for gun control discussions.