364
submitted 1 year ago by HowRu68@lemmy.world to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Veraticus@lib.lgbt 149 points 1 year ago

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

[-] frostwhitewolf@lemmy.world 87 points 1 year ago

Just absolutely mind boggling how frequently this happens and literally nothing is being done about it. What a sick country.

[-] Raphael@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago

They ARE doing something about it.

Financing the whole thing!

[-] HowRu68@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"They ARE doing something about it. Financing the whole thing!".

No they are not. You seem also out of control, buddy.

It's all a mix of the second ammendment, their interpretation & execution of that law, a dominant military and guns lobby system (Billionaire$); people loving their guns, no access to good (mental) health care, which allthogether is holding their country hostage, imho.

So yeah, its all out of control. And nothing has changed, except that it's getting worse.

add.(mental) healthcare

[-] Raphael@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Part 1:

No they are not

Part 2:

It’s all a mix of the second ammendment, their interpretation & execution of that law, a dominant military and guns lobby system (Billionaire$); people loving their guns, no access to good (mental) health care, which allthogether is holding their country hostage, imho.

LOL

[-] Dr_Duckless@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago

He is not that wrong, after all switzerland to have guns and they control it with ease. They even celebrate a gun festival. where children practice shooting.

[-] Raphael@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

New York has more people than Switzerland.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 year ago

That's why we use per capita for statistics like this. It doesn't matter who has more people if you adjust for population. Now, you could argue density is the problem, but in less dense places in the US the rate is even higher, so...

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] coffeebiscuit@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Which is, sadly, working very well.

[-] trifictional@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

And somehow some people are going to use this as reasoning that they need more guns to defend themselves.

[-] FlyLikeAMouse@feddit.uk 53 points 1 year ago

For all its foibles and peculiarities, the US’ apparently almost fetishistic relationship with guns is far and away the hardest for me to understand as an outside observer.

[-] willmo@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

Trust me, I live here and I don’t get it either. And when you ask people they’ll tell you they have guns because other people have guns so they need it for protection. So you guys all have guns because you’re scared other people have guns?? Great recipe.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

Play by the rules of the game you're playing.

Not the rules of the game you want to play.

If only the crazies have guns, they're going to start acting a lot crazier. Does it magically make everything safer to have your own? Obviously not. Statistically you're more likely to shoot yourself.

But until we pass actual gun control, it's hard to judge someone for having a gun.

[-] MrVilliam@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

I bought my first gun right after the fat dipshit won the 2016 election. I realized that there were many more hateful, violent, dumbasses here than I'd ever imagined. I lived in a very red county at the time and I didn't think it was impossible that they might "leak" lists of registered non-Republican voters' info along with stochastic terroristic speech like "it'd be nice if my supporters who also support the 2nd amendment could do something about these misguided people."

I'm less worried about that now for various reasons, but we're not completely out of the fascist woods yet. There's a deep, festering rot and we've only treated symptoms. Until we address campaign finance, education funding, disinformation, and stronger market regulation and trust busting, we're just kicking the can down the road.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] minorsecond@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

That's what my wife says. I want to sell our gun and she's anti-gun too. But she doesn't want to get rid of our gun until guns are banned.

[-] electronicoldman@lemmy.fmhy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Just look at the guns these zealots buy. Big and black. Combine that with the typical racialized sexual insecurities of the white male conservative American, which as a group is becoming more and more incel because no woman in this day and age wants anything to do with them.

[-] MrVilliam@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

You think conservatives are buying big black guns because they're thinking about big black cocks?

Business idea: put white cerakote on big guns to sell to these weirdos, and use phallic sexual marketing tactics with undertones of their stupid replacement theory.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 39 points 1 year ago

Meanwhile, over 500 people have been killed by police in 2023 so far, and yet we never hear the president comment on that. Maybe we should be disarming the police?

[-] christophski@feddit.uk 27 points 1 year ago
[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago

Why? Lots of people have guns, and almost all of them are never a problem to anyone. Perhaps we should look into why violence happens and address those root causes and of course disarm the police because their only purpose is violence.

[-] zefiax@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I would agree if gun regulation wasn't proven to work 8n every other country on the planet. With that mountain of evidence, maybe it's time to stop with the what aboutism and pretending it isn't part of the problem.

[-] Fishe_stix@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

The president again parrots "assault rifle" and magazine capacity bans, which only pushes actual reform further out of reach. We lack a centralized database of ownership, private sale registration but we are able to keep a computer database of prescription medications so a kid doesn't get his Adderall a day early. We register cars regardless of type of sale and require a license to drive but firearms are freely sold by private sale with no requirements to register or license the user. We suspend driving privileges for nonpayment of debts, but you are expected to be honest about being a fugitive when filling out ffl forms. If we don't treat firearms at least as seriously as cars, why does the magazine capacity matter? Why do people who can't define the term assault rifle calling for reforms based on nuanced features of firearms.

This cycle just repeats. Someone tries to ban magazine size or something they know nothing about and any chance of meaningful reform is over. I would gladly submit to more stringent background checks, registration, and proof of competency. But when the conversation starts out with banning scary black rifles or magazines over 10 rounds I know nothing will change. These suggestions are worthless and make gun owners unwilling to engage.

Imagine we wanted to cut down on traffic crashes so the suggestion is made by someone who does drive to limit fuel tank size or ban "sports cars". Of course no one can define sports car, and gas tanks don't make people drive recklessly, but the person proposing the law doesn't know anything about cars. Car enthusiasts would roll their eyes and consider the attempt a joke. But instead we have speed limits, vehicle registration, driver license requirements, and safety standards that actually make cars safer. You can own a Porsche, but if you break the law your registration will be used to find you and your driver's license in jeopardy.

Americans aren't going to give up guns. But there is hope that current technology could better regulate ownership and usage. Unfortunately idiotic hollow statements about magazine size and the assault rifle boogy man make those who could facilitate change look foolish.

[-] HowRu68@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

"Fifteen people were killed and 94 injured across 13 states as well as Washington DC".

These massshootings are so out of control..

[-] Snorf@reddthat.com 4 points 1 year ago

Always have been

[-] dan@lemm.ee 26 points 1 year ago

Holy fucking shit what a ridiculous country.

[-] Pergle@reddthat.com 21 points 1 year ago

It seems like common sense to make guns have the same requirements as cars. You need to pass a short course and get a license. I don't understand what is unclear about the 2nd amendment: “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.”

Right there, in the text: "Well regulated".

[-] galloog1@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Well regulated, as in well maintained. Additionally, it is a conditional clause providing the context for its existence. Taking this legal approach has never worked in court. The Constitution was written to be changed for a reason but we are afraid to or it is opposed.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] thorbot@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

"We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas!"

[-] Omen2819@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

This is why we chose to stay home on holidays. I feel bad that my kids are missing out, but I would rather have them miss some fireworks than risk becoming a statistic.

[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 year ago

You are paranoid and ruining your children's childhood for no reason at all. Learn statistics, and incorporate that into your daily life. Hint if you drive a car you are endangering your children way more.

[-] Omen2819@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago

Interesting, you’re telling me to learn statistics, and then you skipped over the leading cause of death for children in the United States.

Try incorporating empathy in your life, and understand it’s not about you. If you don’t have the same concern as others, you don’t have to resort to insults; you can accept that someone else feels differently without trying to hurt them.

[-] NotSpez@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

So first and foremost, how you raise your children is your business. Also, it really sucks you live in a place where you have to factor can violence into the education of your kids. However, as someone who believes over protecting children can be more harmful than beneficial to them, there is a counter argument to be made.

In a way, the tone of the reply of the other poster might have been more wrong than the content. What I mean by this, is that statistics is a very tricky science to apply to our own reality sometimes. For instance, one could substract the cases of gun violence caused by guns of the own household if you don’t own any guns. Or correct for the area you live in, if this is a place with particularly low or high incidence of gun violence. Or discount the school shooting statistics, if you are only using the statistics as a reason not to let them go to social gatherings.

Again, in no way do I want to tell you what to do, just stating that the same statistics can be used to both support or counter an argument.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] mintyfrog@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

I didn't know "children" included 18 and 19 year olds but not infants.

Regardless, I hope that you and your family were able to enjoy the holiday and feel safe wherever you were. Freedom includes doing what you feel is best, and nobody should fault you for wanting to keep your kids safe.

[-] lntl@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 1 year ago

America needs gun violence so that when its military does violence, the people are numb to it.

[-] sparky@lemmy.federate.cc 12 points 1 year ago

Absolutely out of control.

[-] trias10@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Just a part of the 4th of July experience really

[-] Raphael@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

FREEDOM

LIBERTY

Ha!

[-] LeZero@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

As American as apple pie, seems horribly fitting

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Eidolon_Alpha@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The only 'mass shooting' was the Philly one. Intellectually stunted and politically blinded morons are trying to change the definition by lumping in gang bangers doing drive bys and shooting up house parties. If you Individually dig through the gunviolencearchive.org sources, the overwhelming majority of them have an African American teenager with a handgun set out to settle a personal vendetta; yet somehow that scenario is - by gunviolence.orgs own statistical criteria - categorized the same exact way as a deranged psychopath with an AR-15 randomly shooting up a mall (which even once is way too fucking common, but not as statistically prominent as the site is trying to mislead the public to believe).

It's not a gun problem, it's a cultural one.

[-] Lininop@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

Why can't it be both? Especially when guns are so interwoven into the culture.

So it's not a mass shooting if the person is black and the crime is personal? What led you to come with that criteria? I tend to think "A mass shooting is a violent crime in which an attacker kills or injures multiple individuals simultaneously using a firearm." is a pretty fair definition. You know "mass" as in several individuals involved and "shooting" as in a firearm was involved. Keep it up with the mental gymnastics though.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
364 points (100.0% liked)

World News

32326 readers
393 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS