The issue is that a lot of the “mass shootings” are not terror incidents like the school shootings we’ve all heard about.
Take the Philly one, for instance. It was covered in my local media and I still don’t quite get what happened. It sounded like a fight miles away ended up in a gunfight in South Philly.
The type of gun violence that really reverberates in the USA is the school shooting type of incident. It’s a lone gunman who has no relation to the victims.
But isn’t the source of the problem the same for both? Or do you mean that people consuming the news just don’t sympathize with murders when it’s a gang war?
I’m not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand this because it gets brought up a lot when mass shootings happen and I guess to me, murder is murder.
Right, it just doesn’t get media coverage because we don’t sympathize in those cases. And it doesn’t fit into people’s mental concept of “mass shooting” as a result. Someone elsewhere in these comments already tried to say this doesn’t count as a mass shooting
The source of the problem is crime (often due to poverty/gang culture) and mental health issues. If the source of the problem was gun owners there would be far more deaths. Millions of people own guns without ever harming anyone. Fixing healthcare so it’s accessible to people who need it, expanding social services, and fixing income inequality is the real solution.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean you should fight them for gun control instead of fighting them for the other things. You can instead advocate for those other things. Those other things are also easier tbh because they don’t require an amendment to the constitution to happen.
Or we can fight for both since no one needs the kind of hardware that’s out there right now.
Screw amendments, we can just argue that the second is referring to a person’s upper limbs. Besides, with the supreme court saying the president is above the law and states requiring the 10 commandments in schools, it’s pretty clear the Constitution doesn’t mean shit anyway.
Then it’s weird that pretty much all the countries with high homicide rates, the U.S. included, tend to have legal guns and the ones with low homicide rates tend not to.
There are 1.2 guns for every person in the united states and the homicide rate is 6.383 for every 100,000 people. It doesn’t break out homicides by guns vs. other methods but even if every homicide was using a gun that isn’t much of a correlation between gun ownership and murdering people. There are always other factors. If just guns made people commit homicide there would be bodies piled in the streets.
It’s also associated with domestic violence. Yes that’s a crime but it’s not the crime people are thinking of. And unfortunately that one is going to be the tricky one to resolve
I think that would fall under expanding social services, either to give the abusee options to remove themselves from the situation or get the abuser into counseling early on before it gets more serious or a combination of the two. Personally I think a lot of violent assholes could be sorted out if everyone had to take counseling in high school and learn methods of dealing with their shit.
Because Pandoras box is opened and there is no closing it. Criminals will get access to firearms even if they’ve all been banned. Gun control logic is like giving a bandaid to someone with cancer.
We need to fix the why, not the how of our violence issue.
We need to focus on social programs, single payer healthcare, our education system, prison and police reform, and ending the war on drugs. Just these things alone would drop our violence by 100xs what another useless gun control bill would do.
None of those things have anything to do with the type of violence or whether or not they know the victims.
So that really doesn’t explain anything.
This was not about whether or not a gun control discussion is worth having. This is about the relevance of the type of gun violence and whether or not the murderer and the victim new each other. What difference does it make?
So what’s your question then? Most gun violence is not random. Hell most violence is not random. That’s what the public perceives though. Which causes the gun control issue to be heavily viewed as something its not. Hence the incessant need to act like another AWB would do anything to curb the violence. When in reality it would do absolutely jack shit, because the majority of gun deaths are via handguns.
Why does the type of gun violence matter? Why does it matter whether or not they know the victims?
I don’t understand the relevance to the gun control discussion.
You have made your opinion that there should be absolutely no discussion of gun control known many times, so maybe you weren’t the person I wanted an answer from. Especially when you weren’t the one I asked.
I did answer your question. It matters because it is used as a agenda to make the public feel like we have random mass shootings daily. It %100 matters.
This is why the GVA is bunk crap, because it twists the truth.
I’ve never said that there should be no discussion of gun control. I just point out how little logic is behind the gun control that’s proposed, because it’s not based in reality.
Because it’s a lot easier to tell yourself it’s ok when it’s related to crime, domestic violence, or some other form of intentionally targeted killing. That doesn’t make it ok, but people tell themselves they and their loved ones are safe.
All it does is turns bad decisions and bad situations into tragedies. I have gun owners I like and respect, but I keep finding the people most invested in their guns are the people I trust least to have them.
The issue is that a lot of the “mass shootings” are not terror incidents like the school shootings we’ve all heard about.
Take the Philly one, for instance. It was covered in my local media and I still don’t quite get what happened. It sounded like a fight miles away ended up in a gunfight in South Philly.
The type of gun violence that really reverberates in the USA is the school shooting type of incident. It’s a lone gunman who has no relation to the victims.
Why does the type of gun violence matter? Why does it matter whether or not they know the victims?
I don’t understand the relevance to the gun control discussion.
It matters for media coverage because gang wars are different than “innocent little granny shot by lone wolf”
But isn’t the source of the problem the same for both? Or do you mean that people consuming the news just don’t sympathize with murders when it’s a gang war?
I’m not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand this because it gets brought up a lot when mass shootings happen and I guess to me, murder is murder.
Right, it just doesn’t get media coverage because we don’t sympathize in those cases. And it doesn’t fit into people’s mental concept of “mass shooting” as a result. Someone elsewhere in these comments already tried to say this doesn’t count as a mass shooting
Got it. Thanks.
The source of the problem is crime (often due to poverty/gang culture) and mental health issues. If the source of the problem was gun owners there would be far more deaths. Millions of people own guns without ever harming anyone. Fixing healthcare so it’s accessible to people who need it, expanding social services, and fixing income inequality is the real solution.
Unfortunately the people opposed to gun control are also typically opposed to all those things you mentioned.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean you should fight them for gun control instead of fighting them for the other things. You can instead advocate for those other things. Those other things are also easier tbh because they don’t require an amendment to the constitution to happen.
Or we can fight for both since no one needs the kind of hardware that’s out there right now.
Screw amendments, we can just argue that the second is referring to a person’s upper limbs. Besides, with the supreme court saying the president is above the law and states requiring the 10 commandments in schools, it’s pretty clear the Constitution doesn’t mean shit anyway.
Good luck with that.
Then it’s weird that pretty much all the countries with high homicide rates, the U.S. included, tend to have legal guns and the ones with low homicide rates tend not to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
You would think there would be some sort of link.
There are 1.2 guns for every person in the united states and the homicide rate is 6.383 for every 100,000 people. It doesn’t break out homicides by guns vs. other methods but even if every homicide was using a gun that isn’t much of a correlation between gun ownership and murdering people. There are always other factors. If just guns made people commit homicide there would be bodies piled in the streets.
That is not in any way a response to my point.
It’s also associated with domestic violence. Yes that’s a crime but it’s not the crime people are thinking of. And unfortunately that one is going to be the tricky one to resolve
I think that would fall under expanding social services, either to give the abusee options to remove themselves from the situation or get the abuser into counseling early on before it gets more serious or a combination of the two. Personally I think a lot of violent assholes could be sorted out if everyone had to take counseling in high school and learn methods of dealing with their shit.
Because Pandoras box is opened and there is no closing it. Criminals will get access to firearms even if they’ve all been banned. Gun control logic is like giving a bandaid to someone with cancer.
We need to fix the why, not the how of our violence issue.
We need to focus on social programs, single payer healthcare, our education system, prison and police reform, and ending the war on drugs. Just these things alone would drop our violence by 100xs what another useless gun control bill would do.
None of those things have anything to do with the type of violence or whether or not they know the victims.
So that really doesn’t explain anything.
This was not about whether or not a gun control discussion is worth having. This is about the relevance of the type of gun violence and whether or not the murderer and the victim new each other. What difference does it make?
So what’s your question then? Most gun violence is not random. Hell most violence is not random. That’s what the public perceives though. Which causes the gun control issue to be heavily viewed as something its not. Hence the incessant need to act like another AWB would do anything to curb the violence. When in reality it would do absolutely jack shit, because the majority of gun deaths are via handguns.
I asked my question. You aren’t answering it.
I will repeat it:
You have made your opinion that there should be absolutely no discussion of gun control known many times, so maybe you weren’t the person I wanted an answer from. Especially when you weren’t the one I asked.
Take your agenda elsewhere.
I did answer your question. It matters because it is used as a agenda to make the public feel like we have random mass shootings daily. It %100 matters.
This is why the GVA is bunk crap, because it twists the truth.
I’ve never said that there should be no discussion of gun control. I just point out how little logic is behind the gun control that’s proposed, because it’s not based in reality.
No. No you didn’t. I also didn’t ask you and I don’t want your opinion because I know what your opinion is already.
I mean I did answer your question, you where just hoping for someone else to give you a different answer.
Because it’s a lot easier to tell yourself it’s ok when it’s related to crime, domestic violence, or some other form of intentionally targeted killing. That doesn’t make it ok, but people tell themselves they and their loved ones are safe.
All it does is turns bad decisions and bad situations into tragedies. I have gun owners I like and respect, but I keep finding the people most invested in their guns are the people I trust least to have them.