US on track to set record in 2023 for mass killings after series of shootings(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
US on track to set record in 2023 for mass killings after series of shootings
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/09/us-on-track-set-record-mass-killings-2023
150 comments
More and more it seems the country is too corrupt to fix this problem. When will Americans realize they are not living in a democracy?
We are living in a democracy. There is a significant portion of the population that does not want any movement on gun control. I understand most Americans agree that we need some type of background checks and other common sense restrictions in place, but the hesitation to implement this is largely because of the extreme faction, and honestly the gun control that there is broad support to pass wouldn't fix the problem anyway.
All polls report a majority of Americans want gun control, it’s not about a lack of movement on gun control, it’s the opposite, controls are being removed with horrible and predictable results. We are heading in the wrong direction on that issue.
>All polls
You mean the same polls that said Trump had no chance in 2016?
>controls are being removed with horrible and predictable results
Ignoring the objective fact that disarming legal citizens does nothing to quell armed crime, what controls have been removed, and what were these “horrible” results? If anything more gun control has happened in the last 8 years, what with banning bump stocks, % lowers, the attempted ban on 3D printed firearms, red flag laws, and dozens of attempted laws infringing on the 2nd Amendment.
You mean the same polls that said Trump had no chance in 2016?
>controls are being removed with horrible and predictable results
Ignoring the objective fact that disarming legal citizens does nothing to quell armed crime, what controls have been removed, and what were these “horrible” results? If anything more gun control has happened in the last 8 years, what with banning bump stocks, % lowers, the attempted ban on 3D printed firearms, red flag laws, and dozens of attempted laws infringing on the 2nd Amendment.
> Ignoring the objective fact that disarming legal citizens does nothing to quell armed crime
citation needed. what's the one unique thing about the united states that makes it #1 in mass shootings? banning bump stocks or other band-aid solutions are not going to make any kind of significant dent in mass murders.
citation needed. what's the one unique thing about the united states that makes it #1 in mass shootings? banning bump stocks or other band-aid solutions are not going to make any kind of significant dent in mass murders.
>citation needed
Simple logic. Guns are manufactured outside of the US throughout the entirety of Central and South America, and can be made extremely cheaply using simple parts from a home improvement store. The only way to remove guns from criminals hands is to completely block all border movement to/from Mexico and ban all Home Depots and related stores federally.
> united states… #1 in mass shootings
More information required. Considering we’re only 32nd highest in the world for gun crime[0], I highly doubt we have less annual incidents than Venezuela and El Salvador. Especially since according to my research only 12 countries have recorded mass shootings[1], most of which contain extensive gun control. Thus without mass killings to compare it to, and lacking information of countries with similar/worse rates of gun homicides, makes “mass shootings” a flawed metric used only to push narratives.
[0] - https://web.archive.org/web/20230418110343/https://www.npr.o...
[1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20230506023629/https://wisevoter...
Simple logic. Guns are manufactured outside of the US throughout the entirety of Central and South America, and can be made extremely cheaply using simple parts from a home improvement store. The only way to remove guns from criminals hands is to completely block all border movement to/from Mexico and ban all Home Depots and related stores federally.
> united states… #1 in mass shootings
More information required. Considering we’re only 32nd highest in the world for gun crime[0], I highly doubt we have less annual incidents than Venezuela and El Salvador. Especially since according to my research only 12 countries have recorded mass shootings[1], most of which contain extensive gun control. Thus without mass killings to compare it to, and lacking information of countries with similar/worse rates of gun homicides, makes “mass shootings” a flawed metric used only to push narratives.
[0] - https://web.archive.org/web/20230418110343/https://www.npr.o...
[1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20230506023629/https://wisevoter...
What makes you think we haven’t?
You are living in a democracy. Just one with conservatives who have not over the decades had any concern for the pile of bodies generated by a myriad of things (from AIDs to COVID to guns to healthcare to drugs) unless they could blame a Muslim.
Disturbing to see so many in favor of removing our bedrock rights because they are afraid of a tool. Nobody wants to end up like the UK or Australia in terms of reduced rights. That was literally the impetus for the creation of the USA.
Tiring to see so many Americans continually ignore the fact that guns, shooting enthusiasts, and hunters all still exist in Australia. Just a simple google search would reveal shooting clubs exist across this continent. Sure, shooters are not out there with a full auto Barrett 50 (which, funnily enough is now Australian owned) going rock and roll on the local fauna. But guns exist here, they're in people's homes, and this is a fact.
Guns, shooting enthusiasts and some people owning lots of guns (I know someone who lives in Brisbane, Australia, with 40 in his home) all exist in many countries. Yet the USA is the singularly the gun death problem.
It's pretty clear the difference isn't the presence of guns, or the "restrictions" (in Brisbane you need a licence that boils down to knowing gun safety), it's an attitude. The attitude in the US seems to be it's perfectly acceptable to use a gun for self defence, up to and including killing someone. In the rest of the world we are happy to delegate killing people for crimes to the government, so under no circumstances is it legal to threaten someone with a gun, let alone shoot them. Accordingly the rest of the world's population is happy to have fairly mild restrictions on gun use that allows their use for anything (sport, farming, game hunting, ...) bar personal protection from other people.
I suspect the person you are respond would disagree violently on this one point. To them the entire point of owning a gun is self defence. They insist they must have the right to kill someone.
It's pretty clear the difference isn't the presence of guns, or the "restrictions" (in Brisbane you need a licence that boils down to knowing gun safety), it's an attitude. The attitude in the US seems to be it's perfectly acceptable to use a gun for self defence, up to and including killing someone. In the rest of the world we are happy to delegate killing people for crimes to the government, so under no circumstances is it legal to threaten someone with a gun, let alone shoot them. Accordingly the rest of the world's population is happy to have fairly mild restrictions on gun use that allows their use for anything (sport, farming, game hunting, ...) bar personal protection from other people.
I suspect the person you are respond would disagree violently on this one point. To them the entire point of owning a gun is self defence. They insist they must have the right to kill someone.
I agree. As an expat yank I've seen both sides. I was raised in a gun heavy household and had a loaded Sig P229 and MAK-90 in my bedroom at 18.
Moving to Australia and realising I didn't like to live life with 'my head on a swivel' was quite a revelation. And the laws around proportional use of force down here are a refreshing change to the 'shoot the person and drag them in your house to claim self defense' American mentality. You'd end up being charged with murder doing that here, and rightfully so imho.
Moving to Australia and realising I didn't like to live life with 'my head on a swivel' was quite a revelation. And the laws around proportional use of force down here are a refreshing change to the 'shoot the person and drag them in your house to claim self defense' American mentality. You'd end up being charged with murder doing that here, and rightfully so imho.
What reduced rights are you talking about?
The guns are there to make sure the public servants don't become the master.
At least, that was the idea.
At least, that was the idea.
Doesn't seem to be working does it?
To estimate that we would need some unit or scale of how bad things can possibly get. I don't want to think about it.
Australia's reduced rights was the impetus for the creation of the USA?
If you're queasy, don't watch any pictures or videos of the last two events, they're pretty bad and the twitter algo promoting checkmark accounts boosted them. The mall one had pictures and videos of bodies in a pile with blood all over and what looked like a kid's brains out on the sidewalk.
Victims: (no gore) https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/allen-texas-outlet-m...
Victims: (no gore) https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/allen-texas-outlet-m...
Maybe what the American public needs is a little gore to snap them out of whatever trance is making them constantly vote for these disasters.
Look at how vanilla and sanitized 'mass shooting' news has become:
Look at how vanilla and sanitized 'mass shooting' news has become:
Talking head: "Tonight another mass shooting. Over to our field correspondent..."
Field reporter: "Thanks, Mike! Another terrible mass shooting."
[Camera shows vague picture of a police car]
Police officer: "There was another mass shooting. We came here. Things happened."
[Camera shows SFW picture of a body bag that may or may not be on top of human-like form]
Bystander: "Yup, I can tell you there was a shooting and I was scared."
[Camera shows an ambulance]
Talking Head: "Well, public, you're now informed. Back to beer commercials!"
No one wants mass shootings. People just disagree on how best to prevent them and what’s most important about life.
Throwing fuel on the fire just leads to hastier emotional decisions not better decisions.
Throwing fuel on the fire just leads to hastier emotional decisions not better decisions.
Why do posts like this get flagged? Are Americans not allowed to talk about their violent culture on HN?
I assume it gets flagged because because it's off-topic and not a new phenomenon. You see the same arguments/comments/flames on every post that comes through here. At least if it was about some new proposed system, fundamentally new analaysis/data/tech, then it would be on-topic.
Because it's off-topic for HN. From the HN guidelines linked at the bottom of the page:
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, ... If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic"
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, ... If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic"
It is an insanely divided topic that leads to heated exchanges which is not the kind of dialogue HN is trying to cultivate.
I didn't flag it, but this is definitely the kind of topic that nothing good will ever come out of on HN. (Alas?)
trasz4(2)
Cat's out of the bag on this one. You will never get all the guns back, not without running a very real risk of instigating civil war.
Ms. Jackson Lee thinks the real cause of the problem is "guns, guns, guns" - I say it's criminals, criminals, criminals. Why's Texas have so many criminals willing to use firearms for evil?
Ms. Jackson Lee thinks the real cause of the problem is "guns, guns, guns" - I say it's criminals, criminals, criminals. Why's Texas have so many criminals willing to use firearms for evil?
A agree you can't 'get all the guns back', but there are still reasons to consider more stringent controls, two spring to mind:
1) It's about the social permission you give to people by making guns easily available. For example, in many European countries, bars, pubs and drinking are an absolutely central part of life, whereas in the US drinking establishments often have a much more 'taboo' vibe about them. Alcohol consumption is much lower in the US than Europe. Obviously there are questions about cause and effect, but I suspect that if the US made gun ownership into a more transgressive behaviour, there would be less gun crime.
2) Sometimes a tiny bit of friction makes a big difference. In the UK you can only buy paracetamol (Tylenol) 16 capsules at a time. Nothing stops you buying more by going to multiple shops, or by going back in the same shop multiple times. But that extra bit of friction has dramatically reduced the amount of paracetamol lying around in people's homes, and suicide from paracetamol has radically reduced as a result.
I get the principle you are articulating, but, in practice, it's probably quite a bit more nuanced. Texas isn't likely to be a state full of criminals, rather it's a state with different social norms around firearms, and permissive gun laws.
1) It's about the social permission you give to people by making guns easily available. For example, in many European countries, bars, pubs and drinking are an absolutely central part of life, whereas in the US drinking establishments often have a much more 'taboo' vibe about them. Alcohol consumption is much lower in the US than Europe. Obviously there are questions about cause and effect, but I suspect that if the US made gun ownership into a more transgressive behaviour, there would be less gun crime.
2) Sometimes a tiny bit of friction makes a big difference. In the UK you can only buy paracetamol (Tylenol) 16 capsules at a time. Nothing stops you buying more by going to multiple shops, or by going back in the same shop multiple times. But that extra bit of friction has dramatically reduced the amount of paracetamol lying around in people's homes, and suicide from paracetamol has radically reduced as a result.
I get the principle you are articulating, but, in practice, it's probably quite a bit more nuanced. Texas isn't likely to be a state full of criminals, rather it's a state with different social norms around firearms, and permissive gun laws.
> Sometimes a tiny bit of friction makes a big difference
I have three firearms in my safe right now that were 100% legal when I purchased them. They came with a copy of a letter sent to the manufacturer by the ATF that clearly and explicitly states that they are legal as configured. January 31st of this year, the ATF decided that not only are they illegal, but they've always been illegal. If I don't destroy, modify, or register them they will each carry the same penalty as if I had manufactured machineguns in - checks calendar - 22 days.
Oh, and the registration process requires me to sign a statement indicating that I have committed a felony. The ATF has promised not to prosecute me for it, but... well, forgive me if I don't trust the ATF.
This is not the first time I've had hundreds or thousands of dollars of my legally-acquired property declared retroactively illegal.
I'd love "a tiny bit of friction", because this is ridiculous.
I have three firearms in my safe right now that were 100% legal when I purchased them. They came with a copy of a letter sent to the manufacturer by the ATF that clearly and explicitly states that they are legal as configured. January 31st of this year, the ATF decided that not only are they illegal, but they've always been illegal. If I don't destroy, modify, or register them they will each carry the same penalty as if I had manufactured machineguns in - checks calendar - 22 days.
Oh, and the registration process requires me to sign a statement indicating that I have committed a felony. The ATF has promised not to prosecute me for it, but... well, forgive me if I don't trust the ATF.
This is not the first time I've had hundreds or thousands of dollars of my legally-acquired property declared retroactively illegal.
I'd love "a tiny bit of friction", because this is ridiculous.
If you're a city dwelling blue tribe member, read and reread this comment until you can understand where it's coming from. Most "gun control" legislation has resulted in arbitrary technical restrictions, utterly ineffective for their stated purpose, enforced in a draconian manner where everything is either perfectly legal or an immediate federal felony. Calls to "ban all guns" are a choir-preaching pipe dream, and there's little reason to believe that such a push would produce a different result this time.
What we actually need is consistent legislation across the board that removes the minefield for most gun owners, while focusing on graduated regulation of the states of people who own/carry any type of gun, making sure they're mentally competent and attached to reality - especially as social media pushes more people to become detached.
What we actually need is consistent legislation across the board that removes the minefield for most gun owners, while focusing on graduated regulation of the states of people who own/carry any type of gun, making sure they're mentally competent and attached to reality - especially as social media pushes more people to become detached.
> Most "gun control" legislation has resulted in arbitrary technical restrictions, utterly ineffective for their stated purpose
I'm not sure that's true, given the rise in gun violence starting when the last assault rifle ban ended in 1994.
I'm not sure that's true, given the rise in gun violence starting when the last assault rifle ban ended in 1994.
The federal Assault Weapons ban started in 1994 and ran for 10 years.
Assault Rifles have universal background checks complete with fingerprints, a multi-month waiting period, and a $200 transfer tax - and have since the 1930s. No new assault rifles have been available for civilian purchase in almost 40 years.
Assault Rifles have universal background checks complete with fingerprints, a multi-month waiting period, and a $200 transfer tax - and have since the 1930s. No new assault rifles have been available for civilian purchase in almost 40 years.
> The federal Assault Weapons ban started in 1994 and ran for 10 years.
D'oh! Apparently "what number is higher, 1994 or 2004?" is too much for my primitive human brain.
D'oh! Apparently "what number is higher, 1994 or 2004?" is too much for my primitive human brain.
No worries, we've all done it!
And for that matter the most advanced artificial brains screw up math on a regular basis too
And for that matter the most advanced artificial brains screw up math on a regular basis too
> January 31st of this year, the ATF decided that not only are they illegal, but they've always been illegal.
What do you mean here by "always been illegal"?
What do you mean here by "always been illegal"?
"Sometimes a tiny bit of friction makes a big difference."
If it is a tiny bit of friction, then SCOTUS would likely allow it. If not, it could be struck down. But what tiny bit of friction is being proposed that will have an impact on homicides?
It seems your argument is that reducing the number of guns will reduce shootings and that we can reduce them with "a tiny bit of friction". But the courts are generally holding that if the restrictions prevent qualified individuals from obtaining a gun, then it is not a tiny bit of friction, but an infringement on rights. It seems these are incompatible.
If it is a tiny bit of friction, then SCOTUS would likely allow it. If not, it could be struck down. But what tiny bit of friction is being proposed that will have an impact on homicides?
It seems your argument is that reducing the number of guns will reduce shootings and that we can reduce them with "a tiny bit of friction". But the courts are generally holding that if the restrictions prevent qualified individuals from obtaining a gun, then it is not a tiny bit of friction, but an infringement on rights. It seems these are incompatible.
> very real risk of instigating civil war.
Doubtful. Especially considering the American Civil war was started by wealthy land owners, but fought by the poorest conscripted Southerners. I don't really think Americans are willing to give up their extremely consumerist lives to fight and potentially die over what is essentially a hobby to most.
Of course it's a convenient narrative: that Americans would take up arms in a glorious battle to defend the Second Amendment. But, ultimately it's a marketing tactic pushed by gun manufacturers, a scare tactic to get people to buy up excess inventory before the next capital 'D' Democrat takes office.
Doubtful. Especially considering the American Civil war was started by wealthy land owners, but fought by the poorest conscripted Southerners. I don't really think Americans are willing to give up their extremely consumerist lives to fight and potentially die over what is essentially a hobby to most.
Of course it's a convenient narrative: that Americans would take up arms in a glorious battle to defend the Second Amendment. But, ultimately it's a marketing tactic pushed by gun manufacturers, a scare tactic to get people to buy up excess inventory before the next capital 'D' Democrat takes office.
> I don't really think Americans are willing to give up their extremely consumerist lives to fight and potentially die over what is essentially a hobby to most.
I strongly disagree with the characterization that firearms are a "hobby to most".
That might have been the case as recently as the 1980s, but the push for gun control in the 1990s, culminating in the "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994, galvanized gun owners. I believe that a comfortable majority of gun owners today see through a political lens, not as a hobby.
There's a reason the AR-15 became so prominent so quickly: they were (ineffectively) banned in 1994. When the Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, they flew off the shelves. They became symbols of the resistance to gun control, to the point that they acquired the nickname "America's Rifle".
Now consider that in 1994, there were far, far fewer ARs in citizens' hands and a gun culture that was largely oriented around hunting. In 2023, American gun culture is firmly rooted in political activism.
I strongly disagree with the characterization that firearms are a "hobby to most".
That might have been the case as recently as the 1980s, but the push for gun control in the 1990s, culminating in the "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994, galvanized gun owners. I believe that a comfortable majority of gun owners today see through a political lens, not as a hobby.
There's a reason the AR-15 became so prominent so quickly: they were (ineffectively) banned in 1994. When the Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004, they flew off the shelves. They became symbols of the resistance to gun control, to the point that they acquired the nickname "America's Rifle".
Now consider that in 1994, there were far, far fewer ARs in citizens' hands and a gun culture that was largely oriented around hunting. In 2023, American gun culture is firmly rooted in political activism.
What these people are missing is that it's not just consumers that would be involved. We can already see how law enforcement is split on the issue when you look at how many rural sheriffs are refusing to enforce new gun laws as they are enacted in various states. This is an issue that has a strong urban/rural divide, which means there are people in all manner of roles that could be on either side. And yes, some companies or people take advantage of that, just as other do from reporting on mass shootings while largely ignoring the everyday shootings that pose a bigger threat.
Why's Texas have so many criminals
Texas isn't an outlier in crime. It ranks 21st in murder rate . 84% of the population is urban (15th most urban state). Dallas and Houston are the 4th and 5th largest metro areas in the country, and struggle with the same crime problem as other big metros like New York, LA, Philadelphia, Chicago, Atlanta.
Texas isn't an outlier in crime. It ranks 21st in murder rate . 84% of the population is urban (15th most urban state). Dallas and Houston are the 4th and 5th largest metro areas in the country, and struggle with the same crime problem as other big metros like New York, LA, Philadelphia, Chicago, Atlanta.
Yes, the article is combining suicide and murder to come up with a combined "gun violence" metric. It is not a relevant statistic when talking about crime specifically.
Technically suicide is a crime and shooting yourself with a gun is a violent act, so... Seems about right
Technically suicide is a crime
No it isn't, not in any of the 50 states is it a crime.
No it isn't, not in any of the 50 states is it a crime.
If you want to use firearms for any purpose, you probably go to the place where firearms flow like milk and honey.
It doesn't seem like criminals per se (apart from murders by highly organized crime), but rather people with severe mental health problems. Mental health problems that are seemingly due to mainlining social media memes telling them everyone is out to get them, which have been given a pass due to standing in for real political discourse. For example by the time someone is answering their front door with a gun and pointing it at whomever is there, it's clear that person is suffering from a paranoia that should make them ineligible to possess firearms. And this should be policed by other gun owners! But it's been drawn into this culture war where if we admit that Crazy Bob perhaps shouldn't have guns, then the "liberals" win or whatever.
Do you have evidence for that because psychologists disagree with you.
But let's pretend they don't. I'm all for universal mental health care. How does that help? What can we do to curtail gun violence, if we take the stance that it's a mental health issue? Evaluate everyone before letting them buy guns? Sold! Hell, I'll give mine back (after I've damaged them beyond use so no one can have them in the future).
We can play "Is it mental health?" all day but even if it is and we're going through a period of collective psychosis, I don't see how addressing mental health could ever really help here.
But let's pretend they don't. I'm all for universal mental health care. How does that help? What can we do to curtail gun violence, if we take the stance that it's a mental health issue? Evaluate everyone before letting them buy guns? Sold! Hell, I'll give mine back (after I've damaged them beyond use so no one can have them in the future).
We can play "Is it mental health?" all day but even if it is and we're going through a period of collective psychosis, I don't see how addressing mental health could ever really help here.
Evidence for what, specifically? It's pretty obvious that society is having a major mental health crisis, likely caused by social media, and this isn't particularly controversial when talked about in any other context. But in this context, the groupthink of one political tribe is to focus on extremist solutions about the tools themselves as part of the culture war, all but guaranteeing that nothing will really change.
And yes, I specifically said that mental illness should make you ineligible to possess firearms (isn't this already federal law or am I getting it confused with state laws?). There likely needs to be more implementation details to make this restriction actually effective. And there needs to be buy in from actual gun owners to police their own communities, rather than it being seen as more top-down nanny state regulations to be ignored. This used to be part of common sense, but especially with the rise of social media, it isn't so common any more.
And yes, I specifically said that mental illness should make you ineligible to possess firearms (isn't this already federal law or am I getting it confused with state laws?). There likely needs to be more implementation details to make this restriction actually effective. And there needs to be buy in from actual gun owners to police their own communities, rather than it being seen as more top-down nanny state regulations to be ignored. This used to be part of common sense, but especially with the rise of social media, it isn't so common any more.
What you're saying, in the specific and the broad sense (beyond the scope of this conversation) is controversial. You're making a very bold claim. Can you share the data? Collective mental health across a single geography would be a fascinating read.
Again, let's pretend you're right. How do you bar someone from buying a gun because of mental health issues that are undiagnosed? Do we do a psych eval as part of purchasing a firearm? There's no part of common sense that allowed your local community to strip guns from you because then you'd be breaking a law by trying to steal from somebody and you'd probably get shot. We are talking about people with mental health issues that, in this scenario, have violent tendencies. I honestly see any way that declaring a mental health state of emergency can actually do anything to stop mass shootings unless it's also paired with stopping fun sales, strict red flag laws and legal confiscation of existing weapons.
Happy to hear an implementation plan that isn't just thoughts and prayers. Abbot (R, TX) says he's all in on mental health now, so let's see what that piece of sh comes up with.
Again, let's pretend you're right. How do you bar someone from buying a gun because of mental health issues that are undiagnosed? Do we do a psych eval as part of purchasing a firearm? There's no part of common sense that allowed your local community to strip guns from you because then you'd be breaking a law by trying to steal from somebody and you'd probably get shot. We are talking about people with mental health issues that, in this scenario, have violent tendencies. I honestly see any way that declaring a mental health state of emergency can actually do anything to stop mass shootings unless it's also paired with stopping fun sales, strict red flag laws and legal confiscation of existing weapons.
Happy to hear an implementation plan that isn't just thoughts and prayers. Abbot (R, TX) says he's all in on mental health now, so let's see what that piece of sh comes up with.
> For example by the time someone is answering their front door with a gun and pointing it at whomever is there, it's clear that person is suffering from a paranoia that should make them ineligible to possess firearms.
First, let me say that "pointing at whomever is there" is a big step too far. Also, arbitrarily pointing a gun at someone who is not a threat to you in order to intimidate them is already a separate crime in the US - "brandishing". In the few states that don't have specific brandishing laws, that act typically falls under "assault" or "assault with a deadly weapon".
That said, it's very common for people to answer the door armed. I do. Generally that's a holstered pistol on my belt, but if I'm not wearing "street clothes" at the time it could be a tiny pistol in my pocket, a full-size pistol in my hand behind the door so it can't be seen, or a carbine similarly concealed.
Why? I grew up in a place where police response averaged a half hour or more. My home was a half mile (~0.8km for those of you outside the US) down a private gravel road; if someone was at my door that I didn't expect or recognize, chances are they were unwelcome. Generally that means salesmen, but we weren't the only people familiar with police response times, so precautions were well-founded.
Today it's partly a habit for me. Like many people, I have a cloud-connected camera system around my home and a doorbell camera. I never have to go to my door without knowing who to expect when I open it. It's not entirely habit though - if I'm physically answering the door and don't recognize the person on the other side, I can reasonably expect that the purpose of the interaction will be to eject them from my property. A firearm is nothing more than a tool to facilitate doing that with minimal risk to myself and my family.
> And this should be policed by other gun owners!
We do! Gun stores have the ability to deny a sale to anyone, at any time, for any reason. They exercise it regularly. If you don't believe me, find someone who can legally own a firearm and have them go into a gun store while smelling of weed, or alcohol. Alternatively, have them act erratically in the store. Then ask to buy a gun. Chances are they'll be refused service and told to leave at that point. If not, the person at the counter will give them a "Form 4473". There's a fair chance that the employee will use the time spent by the customer to fill out the 4473 to call the police. If the customer fills it out and their answers indicate that they are not a prohibited person, expect the employee to call in the background check and then pretend that the response is delayed. The customer will be instructed to come back later, at a specific time or when called. Police will be present when they're told to return.
Seriously. I've worked in a gun store and spend a fair amount of time in them, and I've seen this (or variants thereof) play out many times. If you come in and can't suppress your crazy long enough to hold a courteous conversation, you're not buying a firearm from them.
> But it's been drawn into this culture war where if we admit that Crazy Bob perhaps shouldn't have guns, then the "liberals" win or whatever.
What I see is that we're not afraid to "self-police", but see attempts to pass laws with an arbitrary means of depriving citizens of their rights without due process as a (rather obvious) attempt for the government to acquire the tools to disarm citizens at their leisure. In other words: it's not that we think Crazy Bob should be armed, but that we would much rather risk Armed Crazy Bob than to give the government the ability to apply the "Crazy" monicker to whomever they like.
First, let me say that "pointing at whomever is there" is a big step too far. Also, arbitrarily pointing a gun at someone who is not a threat to you in order to intimidate them is already a separate crime in the US - "brandishing". In the few states that don't have specific brandishing laws, that act typically falls under "assault" or "assault with a deadly weapon".
That said, it's very common for people to answer the door armed. I do. Generally that's a holstered pistol on my belt, but if I'm not wearing "street clothes" at the time it could be a tiny pistol in my pocket, a full-size pistol in my hand behind the door so it can't be seen, or a carbine similarly concealed.
Why? I grew up in a place where police response averaged a half hour or more. My home was a half mile (~0.8km for those of you outside the US) down a private gravel road; if someone was at my door that I didn't expect or recognize, chances are they were unwelcome. Generally that means salesmen, but we weren't the only people familiar with police response times, so precautions were well-founded.
Today it's partly a habit for me. Like many people, I have a cloud-connected camera system around my home and a doorbell camera. I never have to go to my door without knowing who to expect when I open it. It's not entirely habit though - if I'm physically answering the door and don't recognize the person on the other side, I can reasonably expect that the purpose of the interaction will be to eject them from my property. A firearm is nothing more than a tool to facilitate doing that with minimal risk to myself and my family.
> And this should be policed by other gun owners!
We do! Gun stores have the ability to deny a sale to anyone, at any time, for any reason. They exercise it regularly. If you don't believe me, find someone who can legally own a firearm and have them go into a gun store while smelling of weed, or alcohol. Alternatively, have them act erratically in the store. Then ask to buy a gun. Chances are they'll be refused service and told to leave at that point. If not, the person at the counter will give them a "Form 4473". There's a fair chance that the employee will use the time spent by the customer to fill out the 4473 to call the police. If the customer fills it out and their answers indicate that they are not a prohibited person, expect the employee to call in the background check and then pretend that the response is delayed. The customer will be instructed to come back later, at a specific time or when called. Police will be present when they're told to return.
Seriously. I've worked in a gun store and spend a fair amount of time in them, and I've seen this (or variants thereof) play out many times. If you come in and can't suppress your crazy long enough to hold a courteous conversation, you're not buying a firearm from them.
> But it's been drawn into this culture war where if we admit that Crazy Bob perhaps shouldn't have guns, then the "liberals" win or whatever.
What I see is that we're not afraid to "self-police", but see attempts to pass laws with an arbitrary means of depriving citizens of their rights without due process as a (rather obvious) attempt for the government to acquire the tools to disarm citizens at their leisure. In other words: it's not that we think Crazy Bob should be armed, but that we would much rather risk Armed Crazy Bob than to give the government the ability to apply the "Crazy" monicker to whomever they like.
> if I'm physically answering the door and don't recognize the person on the other side, I can reasonably expect that the purpose of the interaction will be to eject them from my property
This is exactly what I'm talking about. First, it's unwarranted to think that your only action will be to tell them to get lost. What if they're asking for help? (And while it's certainly one's right to refuse to help someone, that minority opinion isn't particularly interesting)
Second, using this word "eject" indicates that you have set yourself up for a confrontation - from the same exact vein as the social media fueled paranoia I'm talking about. If you cannot answer the door with your priors set to that of civil society rather than action movie, then you aren't being particularly responsible.
> We do [police other gun owners]
Sure, sometimes. But if your buddy is having some mental health problems, and rejects your casual offer to hold his guns, do you escalate the situation to compel him to relinquish them? Or do you look the other way, knowing that he would end up on some kind of permanent flag list? That's the dynamic I'm talking about, and it's ultimately one that requires trust, which has broken down.
> we would much rather risk Armed Crazy Bob than to give the government the ability to apply the "Crazy" monicker to whomever they like.
Well at this point you aren't merely "risking" Crazy Bob. Rather there is an endless supply of Crazy Bobs continually shooting up public places, often broadcasting their psychoses ahead of time, while many gun advocates cling to this possibility that government might declare someone crazy for political purposes - while many simultaneously adopt aggressive craziness as a political movement!
One way or another something is going to break, and I'd much rather have it be this simulated defiance groupthink than most everyone's basic right to self defense as referenced by the second amendment.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. First, it's unwarranted to think that your only action will be to tell them to get lost. What if they're asking for help? (And while it's certainly one's right to refuse to help someone, that minority opinion isn't particularly interesting)
Second, using this word "eject" indicates that you have set yourself up for a confrontation - from the same exact vein as the social media fueled paranoia I'm talking about. If you cannot answer the door with your priors set to that of civil society rather than action movie, then you aren't being particularly responsible.
> We do [police other gun owners]
Sure, sometimes. But if your buddy is having some mental health problems, and rejects your casual offer to hold his guns, do you escalate the situation to compel him to relinquish them? Or do you look the other way, knowing that he would end up on some kind of permanent flag list? That's the dynamic I'm talking about, and it's ultimately one that requires trust, which has broken down.
> we would much rather risk Armed Crazy Bob than to give the government the ability to apply the "Crazy" monicker to whomever they like.
Well at this point you aren't merely "risking" Crazy Bob. Rather there is an endless supply of Crazy Bobs continually shooting up public places, often broadcasting their psychoses ahead of time, while many gun advocates cling to this possibility that government might declare someone crazy for political purposes - while many simultaneously adopt aggressive craziness as a political movement!
One way or another something is going to break, and I'd much rather have it be this simulated defiance groupthink than most everyone's basic right to self defense as referenced by the second amendment.
Didn’t Australia do this? Or are you saying that the US is unique in gun culture? Not rhetorical, I’m genuinely interested.
I am far less free now that there are daily mass shootings. Me and millions of people stay in their homes and never go to populated places. It sucks and I would be willing to go to a deeper level of hell if it meant undoing these shackles.
You didn't say if you have kids or not but as a parent, those worries are multiplied. There are lots of things we won't do because of the additional risk. The terrorists (white nationalists, red pills, etc) are winning.
You can slowly kill the gun culture over generations, both through legal restrictions and social ostracism of gun owners. Happy that my home country of Canada is becoming ever more anti gun.
Statistics show that laws have had the opposite effect in the US - they've fostered an anti-authoritarian cause that has become by far the dominant meme in gun culture.
Sorry, clarifying questions: Are you saying Texas has more criminals? And would that apply to red states in general, as they have the most mass shootings?
branon asks: "Why's Texas have so many criminals willing to use firearms for evil?"
What kind of a question is that? Have you ever heard of a criminal who was willing to use firearms for good? If you were in a "Criminals' Bar" and said what you say above, they would laugh you out of the room! The very definition of a criminal requires that s(he) do evil, their very reputations ride upon how evil/badass they are perceived.
I, for one, am glad to see the broad acceptance of firearms in society. They bring with them a protocol that is commonly known, demands respect (under risk of death) and that encourages the adoption of etiquette (good manners), which is a necessity in a civil society. But while firearms keep our society safe, there is a price to pay. It's a sort of tax on society: you don't want it but it is necessary.
Back to the original question:
FWIW if you're a criminal, you'll get more laughs than money by beating someone with say, a shovel or a rake (as long as you don't overdo it). But you can't make decent money in stand-up comedy these days either. Soooo...
In all seriousness fighting is a physically demanding task, especially if it is necessary to survive each encounter. One seeks a tool that will maximize the harvest at least risk and least effort. The firearm comes immediately to mind. For good reason the Colt .45 revolver was call the "Great Equalizer":
https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/31/the-story-of-how-samuel...
The same Colt .45 revolver was called the "Peacemaker".
Finally, the more people, the more incidents of crime and thus more criminals. Texas is a growing state. For more details on crime growth maybe ask Joe Biden?
What kind of a question is that? Have you ever heard of a criminal who was willing to use firearms for good? If you were in a "Criminals' Bar" and said what you say above, they would laugh you out of the room! The very definition of a criminal requires that s(he) do evil, their very reputations ride upon how evil/badass they are perceived.
I, for one, am glad to see the broad acceptance of firearms in society. They bring with them a protocol that is commonly known, demands respect (under risk of death) and that encourages the adoption of etiquette (good manners), which is a necessity in a civil society. But while firearms keep our society safe, there is a price to pay. It's a sort of tax on society: you don't want it but it is necessary.
Back to the original question:
FWIW if you're a criminal, you'll get more laughs than money by beating someone with say, a shovel or a rake (as long as you don't overdo it). But you can't make decent money in stand-up comedy these days either. Soooo...
In all seriousness fighting is a physically demanding task, especially if it is necessary to survive each encounter. One seeks a tool that will maximize the harvest at least risk and least effort. The firearm comes immediately to mind. For good reason the Colt .45 revolver was call the "Great Equalizer":
https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/31/the-story-of-how-samuel...
The same Colt .45 revolver was called the "Peacemaker".
Finally, the more people, the more incidents of crime and thus more criminals. Texas is a growing state. For more details on crime growth maybe ask Joe Biden?
Its the fomentation of hate, fear, and protracted power struggles.
The good news is that guns are made of metal and metal rusts. So outlaw the military weapons and replacement parts and wait.
World war one rifles coated in cosmoline are just as ready to shoot today as when they were stored in a barrel 100 years ago.
Take a look at the availability of the mosin nagant rifle.
Take a look at the availability of the mosin nagant rifle.
FYI: there's a pistol sitting on my desk in front of me, right now, that I had disassembled last night to thoroughly inspect and clean. It was made in 1909.
That 114-year-old pistol is not only still functional, the only way you could tell it wasn't factory-new when I bought it a few years ago was that the black hard rubber grips were starting to turn a little brown at the edges, and the nickel finish was discolored in a few places on the slide. I've since restored the grips and carefully polished the finish to correct those two points.
Off the top of my head, I have at least two shotguns, one pistol, and four rifles that have been in my family for >100 years. One of those rifles is so old that I'm unsure who first acquired it. It's a "Pennsylvania long rifle". Made long before serial numbers were "a thing", I'd date it to about 1820 based on the style. I know my great-great-grandfather had it, because I have a photograph of him using it as an old man in the early 1900s.
That 114-year-old pistol is not only still functional, the only way you could tell it wasn't factory-new when I bought it a few years ago was that the black hard rubber grips were starting to turn a little brown at the edges, and the nickel finish was discolored in a few places on the slide. I've since restored the grips and carefully polished the finish to correct those two points.
Off the top of my head, I have at least two shotguns, one pistol, and four rifles that have been in my family for >100 years. One of those rifles is so old that I'm unsure who first acquired it. It's a "Pennsylvania long rifle". Made long before serial numbers were "a thing", I'd date it to about 1820 based on the style. I know my great-great-grandfather had it, because I have a photograph of him using it as an old man in the early 1900s.
Clearly, the technology for making things out of ...ferrous metals...is beyond the ken of ...Americans.
So we get manufacturing back in the US. Win-win!
[deleted]
Come on it's two mass shootings every day, that's not exceptional, that is the new normal.
I can't put my finger on it precisely, but it feels like there are outside influences radicalizing people via social media with an ultimate goal of destabilizing the United States.
Or maybe American corporations amplified American problems while chasing money like usual, and then problems present themselves based on American realities.
No need to look for external causes, although blaming external actors also aligns with American historical actions.
No need to look for external causes, although blaming external actors also aligns with American historical actions.
[deleted]
They don't need to be "outside" influences. We're totally capable of radicalizing ourselves domestically.
It's both. Russian troll farms work by amplifying internal destabilizing factors.
Watching city sub-reddits devolve over the years has me feeling the same way. It seems coordinated.
I think it is often coordinated but I doubt all of it is “outside influence.” It doesn’t take many extreme nazi/far right folk to make a dent and they can easily coordinate a small group to trash a subreddit to be more effective.
The oligarchs want us to fight each other, rather than fight them. Divide and conquer has never failed them. Push the culture wars to distract from the class war.
[deleted]
Or it's just cathartic to laugh at the king, even by the king's vassels (Guardian). Are foreign powers weaponizing US dysfunctional to undermine US society, sure. Are their collective impact remotely as effective as dysfunctional US media weaponizing said US dysunfction for views for massive domestic and international audiences, probably not. Past some point ground reality in US is doing most of the work, pressing these buttons by external forces is just filler work to pass the time. It's not even active measures to undermine US society at this point when US society is doing most of the undermining.
I think there are probably outside influences involved. But also, we've already had a civil war that predates the internet by a long shot, and I don't think we necessarily need outside influence for this to be an outcome given a lot of the incentives for radicalized viewpoints.
With such a large, expansive, and diverse population we are a country with many nations inside it. There has certainly been a long history of different viewpoints in different areas, dating back to the decades long debates over the creation of the constitution and bill of rights.
100% I'm surprised this isn't more obvious to others. The media certainly isn't helping the situation either.
As the anthropomorphization of the media, I take personal responsibility for any confusion, frustration, or inconvenience caused by the error. Please know that we deeply regret any harm it may have caused and are committed to rectifying the situation promptly.
We acknowledge that mistakes can happen despite our best efforts to ensure accuracy. However, rest assured that we are taking immediate action to address the issue at hand. We are conducting a thorough investigation to identify the root cause and implement safeguards to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
Our goal has always been to serve as a trusted source of information, and we understand the weight of that responsibility. We appreciate your understanding and patience during this time, as we work diligently to restore your faith in our services.
We value your feedback and encourage you to share any concerns or suggestions you may have. Your input is invaluable in helping us improve our services and ensure that such errors do not repeat themselves.
We acknowledge that mistakes can happen despite our best efforts to ensure accuracy. However, rest assured that we are taking immediate action to address the issue at hand. We are conducting a thorough investigation to identify the root cause and implement safeguards to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
Our goal has always been to serve as a trusted source of information, and we understand the weight of that responsibility. We appreciate your understanding and patience during this time, as we work diligently to restore your faith in our services.
We value your feedback and encourage you to share any concerns or suggestions you may have. Your input is invaluable in helping us improve our services and ensure that such errors do not repeat themselves.
Please be more specific when you talk about "the media", the most abused term in American culture.
If it's plausible that that strategy could work, it's plausible that someone will try it.
You don't need a conspiracy theory to explain why there's a murder problem in a country with a boatload of guns, lax restrictions on violent media, and a culture where infringing on someone's right to do anything can be interpreted as "totalitarian".
No foreign influence required.
No foreign influence required.
The “foreign influence” part is when mass shootings are a fraction of a fraction of the deaths, yet 50% of the news coverage. Media publishes sensational pieces about what consumers demand - consumer demand is increasingly driven by online discourse, which is free to manipulate easily.
The best kind of misinformation is misinformation that is true but not representative of the real situation. Have you checked our heart disease deaths? It is *factually* an issue many orders of magnitude more important to the average American. And yet…zero discussion seems to happen about it online?
And why wouldn’t there be foreign influence? It’s quite an easy checklist:
* do Russia and China have the technical capability to make social media accounts and post in English?: Yes, obviously.
* do Russia and China have any motive to drive fearful divisive narratives in the US?: Yes - we are their primary geopolitical opponent
With both of these true, to assume they’re not doing it for some reason out of kindness requires a lot of mental gymnastics.
The best kind of misinformation is misinformation that is true but not representative of the real situation. Have you checked our heart disease deaths? It is *factually* an issue many orders of magnitude more important to the average American. And yet…zero discussion seems to happen about it online?
And why wouldn’t there be foreign influence? It’s quite an easy checklist:
* do Russia and China have the technical capability to make social media accounts and post in English?: Yes, obviously.
* do Russia and China have any motive to drive fearful divisive narratives in the US?: Yes - we are their primary geopolitical opponent
With both of these true, to assume they’re not doing it for some reason out of kindness requires a lot of mental gymnastics.
In Germany there was a guy building homemade weapons who attempted to shoot up a Synagogue in Halle. It was all over the news. There is more frequent coverage because there are more shootings. No foreign power needed.
It doesn't take foreign influence for shocking violence to get attention. Sensational news has been a big part of mass media as long as mass media has existed.
No but foreign influence does help when any comment pointing out that there are things more important for the country to fix than mass shootings(heart disease and obesity) are immediately downvoted and mocked.
Again, it doesn't suggest anything about foreign influence for a person to disagree with you. Telling people not to worry about (increasing) spectacular violence because they're more likely to die in a car accident reads as if you're changing the subject because you don't want to talk about it.
But violence isn’t increasing, it’s been decreasing for decades with an outlier uptick during COVID.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/crim...
Thats my entire point. You’re talking about something that simply does not exist. But when nearly all of the online discourse acts as if we are less safe now, it’s easy to believe that is true. Even being aware of the statistics sometimes I feel that way.
Sensationalist media has always been a thing. Yet, at the exact same time geopolitical opponents were given a direct input to the media consumed by the average American, sentiment becomes much more negative.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/crim...
Thats my entire point. You’re talking about something that simply does not exist. But when nearly all of the online discourse acts as if we are less safe now, it’s easy to believe that is true. Even being aware of the statistics sometimes I feel that way.
Sensationalist media has always been a thing. Yet, at the exact same time geopolitical opponents were given a direct input to the media consumed by the average American, sentiment becomes much more negative.
"The “foreign influence” part is when mass shootings are a fraction of a fraction of the deaths, yet 50% of the news coverage."
Not foreign influence, but simply that fear and outrage sells.
Not foreign influence, but simply that fear and outrage sells.
Why not both? They have the ability to make social media accounts and assist these fearful and outrages narratives, and they have the motive.
I.e. they are 100%, without a doubt, doing just that
I.e. they are 100%, without a doubt, doing just that
I wouldn't count social media as the media. I certainly see social media and political groups/movements as having foreign influence. I see the media proper as just about the money.
You're telling me that "sensational and outrageous headlines" is a foreign influence operation?
Let's be serious. Yellow Journalism was thriving in its modern birthplace of USA long before PRC or RF even existed.
Let's be serious. Yellow Journalism was thriving in its modern birthplace of USA long before PRC or RF even existed.
No, I’m telling you that sensational media is driven by demand.
Demand from consumers who interact with the internet.
Consumers who, on the internet, ONLY see upvoted comments about masa shootings and see anything talking about the more deadly issue of heart disease/obesity downvoted and mocked.
Demand from consumers who interact with the internet.
Consumers who, on the internet, ONLY see upvoted comments about masa shootings and see anything talking about the more deadly issue of heart disease/obesity downvoted and mocked.
> outside influences radicalizing people
Outside of where?
Outside of where?
Late stage capitalism....divide the country through politics so nothing can get done and remove any nuance from discussions
Occam's Razor: It's the guns.
That isn’t what Occams Razor means.
Guns is a necessary condition, yes, and the problem would be greatly mitigated by removing the necessary condition, yes.
But it's also plausible that like OP says outside influences take advantage of the condition being present.
But it's also plausible that like OP says outside influences take advantage of the condition being present.
All else being equal my ass.
Yup, it's been long known that some state actors, like Russia, do that, usually by amplifying alt-right content.
Bran_son(1)
Obviously what this country needs is even more guns! The more guns a country has the safer it is!
/s
/s
At some point we'll be saturated enough for that "Polite Society" we've been promised by being an "Armed Society" will kick in and we're all gonna feel pretty dumb. Any day now. Any day.
/s
/s