Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

GrampsLFG t1_j4d3n6q wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Euston shooting: Girl, 7, and three women injured near church by millajones

Please tell me this isn’t a serious question. If it is, put down all computing devices and go travel outside the US. Your perspective needs an update.

22

[deleted] t1_j4d6yxk wrote

[removed]

−14

HarEmiya t1_j4dmtvq wrote

I think the main difference lies in quantity. Mass shootings tend to be rare. But in the US, they averaged nearly 2 per day in the past few years. That's an enormous number.

On top of that, most countries seem to want to do something about reducing such events. In the US there is an entire major political party bought and paid for by a lobby group that encourages such shootings. Looking in from the outside, it seems pretty insane.

16

Morgrid t1_j4dxk4v wrote

>But in the US, they averaged nearly 2 per day in the past few years.

Going by the Gun Violence Archive definition, which throws a very wide net compared to just about every other definition.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

−5

HarEmiya t1_j4e0vy8 wrote

4 or more people shot seems perfectly fitting as a definition for a mass shooting.

Regardless of total number, the international study -using same criteria- still points to the US having a third of the world's mass shootings. While only having 4.25% of the world population.

9

known-to-blow-fuses t1_j4gb2z4 wrote

Yea ok but the type of "mass shooting" that mostly contributes to that 2 per day is not what anyone thinks of when you say "mass shooting". It's not what most people are afraid of if they fear a "mass shooting".

And then everything they do here with legislation ignores the vast majority of the actual problem. Illinois just banned "assault weapons" at least temporarily (will be struck down in courts), completely ignoring that the guns they classified as assault weapons are used in a tiny percentage of gun crime in Illinois.

If people actually cared about gun violence in the US, they would target the weapons used in the vast majority of gun crime. Or, and maybe this is a crazy idea, they should try to figure out why people are doing this now and not in the past and fix those things. These "assault weapons" have been available in the US for many many decades. They did not magically turn people into monsters recently, so what did?

−1

HarEmiya t1_j4ghxsc wrote

>Yea ok but the type of "mass shooting" that mostly contributes to that 2 per day is not what anyone thinks of when you say "mass shooting". It's not what most people are afraid of if they fear a "mass shooting".

How so? If 4 people were shot near me, I'd definitely think of the term "mass shooting".

>And then everything they do here with legislation ignores the vast majority of the actual problem. Illinois just banned "assault weapons" at least temporarily (will be struck down in courts), completely ignoring that the guns they classified as assault weapons are used in a tiny percentage of gun crime in Illinois.

>If people actually cared about gun violence in the US, they would target the weapons used in the vast majority of gun crime. Or, and maybe this is a crazy idea, they should try to figure out why people are doing this now and not in the past and fix those things. These "assault weapons" have been available in the US for many many decades. They did not magically turn people into monsters recently, so what did?

Precisely. Many politicians simply don't want to stop it.

−2

known-to-blow-fuses t1_j4ilhhl wrote

I don't believe that banning certain styles of guns is going to stop anything, nor that banning all guns is fair or right.

The politicians may "want" to stop it, but they can't. There's no little rule they can write into law that would stop it, so they push laws that they can convince their constituents will help by appealing to emotion. Lots of phrases like "weapons of war", "destructive devices", "assault weapons", "killing machines", etc. and they reference children being shot in schools as the "mass shooting" pandemic we have when, as we've discussed, the mass shooting pandemic we live in is really more of an issue of gangs in low income communities. There is no simple solution to our violence problems. The best I can come up with is to raise standard of living for the poor so that they're less desperate. Politicians definitely don't want that. Kind of like how your employer will pay you just enough so that you won't quit, politicians will do just enough to get reelected. No more.

2

HarEmiya t1_j4kkahd wrote

>I don't believe that banning certain styles of guns is going to stop anything, nor that banning all guns is fair or right.

It will stop something, but not everything. True, it isn't fair or right, that's why I'm against it. Gun control legislation however would be a huge improvement. Things like universal bgc and closing existing loopholes is sensible, but even those are rarely voted for because weapon manufacturers would lose a percentage. And they own quite a few politicians.

Just because something can't be 100% fixed right now doesn't mean it can't be improved, even if in steps. Perfect is the enemy of good.

0