LordFluffy t1_iu5nde4 wrote
Reply to comment by Draker-X in Sources: At least 6 people shot outside funeral in Pittsburgh’s Brighton Heights neighborhood by Bustalacklusta
> Why is there at least one shooting in the U.S. every day where multiple people are injured or killed, but not constant mass stabbings, mass SUV killings, mass bombings, mass chokings, etc?
People choose the most effective means at their disposal. My point is not that other means are always as effective as firearms. My point is that absent firearms, people are still going to kill each other. The guns didn't cause the incident and absent them such incidents would still occur.
Which is one factor in a much larger puzzle.
> Not isolated incidents you have to go back to 2016 to remember. Every day.
Most of those "every day" incidents have no fatalities. I'm not saying that makes them okay or better, but it does deserve attention.
The reason is those are not murders, they're aggravated assault. When you look at the number of aggravated assaults in the US by weapon, you find that firearms are involved in a minority of them. They are, yes, involved in a majority of homicides.
There are lots of homicides you never hear about because they don't involve guns and aren't particularly newsworthy. In fact, 1/3 of the homicides in the US are committed with something other than a firearm. (EDIT: I went back and checked the CDC's numbers and my statement was incorrect. It's closer to 1/4, not 1/3)
That's still a hell of a lot of homicides, objectively and in comparison to other countries.
Which is, again, to say that it's a more complicated problem than any one means.
Draker-X t1_iu5pg16 wrote
>People choose the most effective means at their disposal.
So, if we took away more efficient means of violence from people (semi-auto long guns) and forced them to use less efficient means (handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, pipe bombs, knives, autos, their bare hands), there would still be a high number of aggravated assaults (which is bad) but fewer homicides (which is good).
Some people that would have died would instead be injured, and I'm guessing some that would have been injured wouldn't be injured at all.
This all sounds like a win-win-win to me.
> Which is, again, to say that it's a more complicated problem than any one means.
Yes, but a sizable number of people want to look at ANYTHING but guns.
I want to look at things other than guns (the state of mental healthcare in the U.S. is appalling, and needs to be reformed and strengthened ASAP), but the ubiquity and ease of acquisition of guns and ammo is a big part of the problem and need to be addressed.
LordFluffy t1_iu5qb1t wrote
> (semi-auto long guns)
You do know that most homicides by gun, including mass murders, are committed with handguns, right?
> ...there would still be a high number of aggravated assaults (which is bad) but fewer homicides (which is good).
Maybe. See, guns are not just one sided. There are around 100k defensive gun uses in the US. Some of those likely are inconsequential, some may be a life saved, and some may be many lives saved. Disarmament is likely to affect the law abiding more than the felonious, so it will likely impact defensive use as much if not more than illicit misuse.
Then it becomes a bet. I've never thought it was a very good one.
Draker-X t1_iu5ufav wrote
> You do know that most homicides by gun, including mass murders, are committed with handguns, right?
> Since 1985 there has been a known total 54 mass shootings involving rifles, mostly semi-automatics. This figure is underreported though, as it excludes the multiple semi-automatic (and fully automatic) rifles used in the 2017 Las Vegas Strip massacre – the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, killing 58 and wounding 546. In fact, semi-automatic rifles were featured in four of the five deadliest mass shootings, being used in the Orlando nightclub massacre, Sandy Hook Elementary massacre and Texas First Baptist Church massacre.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/
How about we just focus on the low-hanging fruit and try to lessen the effects?
> There are around 100k defensive gun uses in the US.
Are there numbers on how many of those are semi-auto long guns vs. pistols and shotguns? I'd like to know how many people use those types of weapons for "defensive purposes".
> Disarmament is likely to affect the law abiding more than the felonious
Good thing I don't want to "disarm" anyone, just outlaw one particular style of weapon and see what happens.
LordFluffy t1_iu5xrzt wrote
> How about we just focus on the low-hanging fruit and try to lessen the effects?
Going for the "low hanging fruit" got us the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs.
Look up the Virginia Tech shooting.
> Are there numbers on how many of those are semi-auto long guns vs. pistols and shotguns?
Not of which I'm aware, though I imagine that handguns are still number one.
> Good thing I don't want to "disarm" anyone, just outlaw one particular style of weapon and see what happens.
Okay, so how do you intend to do that?
This isn't 1994. The proposed AWB's I've seen are the same "by feature" drivel that was passed then to dubious results. Between the millions in circulation, the advent of 3d printing, and the existence of things like 80% lowers, not to mention the extreme politicization and divide on the issue, I don't think you're going to see many benefits.
And again, even if you do ban scary black rifles (though assault weapons were by the 1994 definition rifles, pistols, and shotguns with certain features) then people simply turn to other firearms or other weapons (remember the earlier statement about handguns?).
Addressing the fewer than 400 homicides by rifle a year seems a terrible way to address the overall problem of violence or even the the problem of mass murder.
EDIT: And such bans would, in fact, disarm more people than you realize if it includes any sort of mandatory buyback/confiscation.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments