• balderdash@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly, no one is sharing the deranged off the wall shit on here because anything that doesn’t fit the dominant narrative on Lemmy is pretty quickly downvoted.

        That said, I did upvote this post lol

  • darth_tiktaalik@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    118
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Also Republicans: “this violence is the result of us not beiing Christian enough as a nation”

    Also also Republicans: saying the above while being from a state in the union that’s both one of the most Christian and most violent in the nation.

    • BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ah but you see, statisticians are part of the conspiracy. Anyone with an education who can actually read and interpret trends is just in on it! I haven’t personally experienced a mass shooting, therefore my state is the safest in the nation!

      Either that or we simply aren’t Christian enough to ban all other religions yet and God tests his most faithful, yadda yadda

      God bless America everyone!

      • fiah@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        statisticians are part of the conspiracy

        I get what you’re saying, but also don’t forget to never trust a statistic you didn’t doctor yourself

  • Duchess of Waves@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    In Germany we have on average more privately owned guns than most US states. Still… we had just TWO mass shooting in 20 years.

    Why?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08GbT5ZEs08

    In short: You have to qualify to own a gun. Assholes don’t get guns. And by fullfilling the laws to own a gun you actually earn respect in your community.


    I am member of a German gun club where the local population, the regional police and a couple of NATO soldiers train. It took me nearly one year before I even was allowed to touch a loaded gun, all through my 14th year I was basically just taught how to clean and repair my rifle, how to handle it, how to NOT use it, only then how to use it. And after ten months I was finally given a single bullet.

    I am now 30. Nowadays my family owns and shares a Sig Sauer 200, locked inside the gun club. Everyone except my Mum shots around 25 bullets per month, once a year the whole gun club repeats basic training which includes mental health checks.

    And after basic training we have special events. For example six years ago a local NATO garrison was massively downsized and so they offered us to use up their overaged surplus ammunition. I got to shot pretty much anything from 9mm to 7,62mm for basically free - we collected money for the victims of a local house fire so I put €50 into the collection.

    Did I ever shot a gun outside the gun club?

    Actually: Yes. When I was in the US I joined my Uncle on duck hunt. He was like “ok, hold the big rifle while I show you how to shot a duck using 12gd bird shot.” - he misses, I aim and shot the duck mid-air with a .308. I didn’t know ducks could explode, but yes, they can. I paid with a badly aching shoulder, I wasn’t used to those powerful cadridges any more. He looked angry at me and grumbled the plan was to eat the duck not turn them into fine mist. The other three ducks he left for me to shot and wondered where I had learned to operate a gun like that.

    When I told him a US lieutenant taught me to operate exaclty the same rifle in my gun club he was like “WTF?”. I might mention the lieutenant immediatelly settled down in my town after his duty was over because he liked Bavaria so much and wanted his kids to grow up in a less crazy nation.

    • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      I appreciate your perspective on this. What you describe is about more than just ‘assholes don’t get guns’, although that is a crucial aspect. The way your family owns just ‘a’ gun, trained for a long while before shooting, respect for following gun laws. This is the opposite of the usual experience around guns in the US. We as a culture in the US are careless and wanton with guns in general from what I’ve seen.

      I was shown how to use a gun when I was 6 years old, my parents were responsible though so it was only an air pistol, but heavy duty, not airsoft. We had a shotgun, 9mm pistol and a .22 rifle in the house never locked up, didn’t even have a safe to lock them if my dad wanted to, and the shotgun was often stored loaded. When people here get together to shoot, it’s not odd to hand a loaded gun to someone that has never been to a range or even seen one fired before. Plenty of people are much safer than this, but I would guess my experience is the more common from what I’ve seen.

      From what I can tell, most gun safety training in the US is a single sentence: Always treat it like it’s loaded, and keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.

          • D_C@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            What are your views on ‘objects’ such as personal hand grenades or professionally made improvised fertiliser explosives?

            I find it absolutely disgusting that I’m not allowed to turn MY innocent 4 wheel brumm brummm object in to a fun party popper object of devastation!!! It’s political correctness gone mad it is !!!
            (Do I need the /s?)

            • Mehphomet@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              That greatly depends on the gun. And the toilet, honestly. Have you seen those golf ball ones? Those could take a .380 or a double deuce, I bet.

      • Duchess of Waves@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Edit: “Not Qualified” is not the right wording. Because Qualification only plays a secondary role. It is all about the licence.

        In Germany carrying a gun without the right licence would be illegal possesion of a firearm.

        But wait, even if you have a licence you can get fined for illegal transport and handling of a firearm.

        Carrying a conceiled small sidearm without a special permit is big trouble. Transporting a firearm without a locked enclosure and not seperated from the ammunition is also a serious offence. At home you need a locked container. All in all it got so complicated that my Dad stopped storing guns at home. He sold one and put the other into the gun club. The club is really helpful, we can lend legal transport containers and for guns which we are not allowed to move in public they offer transport services for a small fee, usually that means a police officer moves the gun in his free time using legal transport containers in exchange for a beer.

        Classic case: Someone dies and you find a loaded pistol in his inheritance. You bring it to the police. You did three offences: Carrying a conceiled firearm in public, carrying a firearm without proper container, carrying a loaded firearm. The legal way would have been: Calling the police to retrieve the firearm. To be honest, the state attourney usually closes those cases rather quick as “minor incident without criminal intent” but you still get a serious talk.

        There are some exceptions for old historic muzzleloaders which are often fired at historic events without bullets. We don’t have those so I don’t know barely anything about those rules.

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Absolute bullshit, nobody is shooting a duck mid-air with a rifle. Your story is fake and lame.

      • Mehphomet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d be surprised if it could even happen legally, there’s no reason to have a rifle with you to duck hunt. If DNR caught you you’d get a ticket for poaching ( you have a permit for ducks but you are out with gear to hunt deer ) and they’d keep the guns. Yes, even on private land.

    • Retrograde@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thanks for the interesting read. Really goes to show how mad we are in the US for handing out guns like candy

    • Bgugi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you’d actually received as much safety training as you claim, you never would have taken a shot at an elevated target with a center-fire rifle.

      • Duchess of Waves@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        The target wasn’t elevated. We were elevated. I tried to explain that the duck was just taking speed to take off but honestly I don’t know the right English word for that maneuver. And as I hinted, I had fired the exact same rifle two years earlier at our gun club several times. Also, I paid with an aching shoulder for my recklessness.

    • karakoram@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There have been at least 2 mass shootings in Germany since March a simple Google search reveals. 🤔

      • Duchess of Waves@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Shouldn’t “mass shootings” include “mass”?

        I mean a shooting with 0 dead surely doesn’t count as such and three people from a youth gang isn’t exactly a typical mass shooting either.

        • karakoram@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, it’s mass shootings not mass killings. However, that’s not really important in this discussion when you can point to the Hamburg mass shooting in March and this other one from July with 3 fatalities.

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    1 year ago

    While we should have better access to mental (and physical) health care, that’s probably not going to fix the too frequent “Someone knocked on my door so i shot them” murders that happen too often.

    It also won’t solve the “and then the police shot him” murders.

    There are a lot of things wrong with the US and its dominant culture. I’d say most of the blame and the blood is on conservatives. Which makes a kind of sense - if you have a shitty system and you are fighting to keep it as is, you’re probably a shitty person with shitty takes making the world worse.

    If someone just thanos snapped away the conservatives, or at least the authoritarian subset of them, many problems would vanish overnight.

    • Shadywack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Healthcare is unobtainable for most, housing is now a pipe dream for most, prosperity falling apart, working until you die. “We need to incarcerate all the drug addicts and kill the crazy people”.

      If only the mass shooters would just target the rich instead of the general public, but I agree with you. A Thanos snap on a good chunk of the conservatives would fix a ton of shit.

      • Smoogs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That thanos snap better take care of a all the very corrupt politicians and unchecked capitalists as well pretty please.

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Healthcare is unobtainable for most,

        What do you mean?

        housing is now a pipe dream for most,

        What do you mean?

        • Shadywack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I guess it’s not technically unobtainable, it just puts you into financial ruin to utilize healthcare. I call that unobtainable if you’re trying to be financially responsible.

          When I look at housing and I see that it has to consume %50 or more of people’s annual budget, that means young people need to earn around 115-150k/yr in order to become homeowners, and that’s only after banks have shifted the goal posts. Young professionals are also much more likely to be saddled with 30-65k of student debt.

          When you combine that with the inflation spike that happened last year, and the rising rents, there’s many people earning only $25/hr but rent is $2k/month.

          Just fucking good times. The next spike will probably be the suicide rates.

    • Ser Salty@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      The “funny” thing about the police shooting people for having guns is that it essentially means Americans don’t actually have the right to own/carry guns. They only have the right to buy them.

      • VinnieFarsheds@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Even if you don’t have a gun it’s a problem, if you are are stopped by police for a random check^1. You are asked for your license and registration papers. You move your hand 1 cm to get it, cop suddenly realizes you could theoretically have a gun, then decides to shoot you first because self defense.

        The possibility that literally everyone can have a firearm makes living there so much more dangerous compared to not having the option of shooting back whenever it would be needed for actual self defense.

        ^1 probability for random police checks has an inverse proportionality to the whiteness of one’s skin color.

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Police cannot shoot you (legally) for carrying, now whether they follow the law is a different matter

        • Ser Salty@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          They just claim they feared for their life and now they’re declared not guilty. There is no specific law saying they can just shoot you for having a gun, but there’s plenty of other laws, precedents etc. making it absolutely legal for them to shoot you for having a gun.

    • Mehphomet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      We all know if that happened the democrats would fuck it up. They’d stop everything they were working on and set up conservation efforts for conservatives. They’d have musicians raise awareness of the unprecedented threat the conservatives are under and tell everyone where they can donate to those left griftless. The real shitty thing is that without the Republicans around to fuck it up it’ll probably actually work.

      • ThatFembyWho
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh I long for the day we can tour a historical conservative town reenactment.

        “Over here, notice the giant American flag, and even more prominent Trump 2024 flag. On the other side, a comically large truck requiring a ladder to enter, believe it or not, these were often chosen for low fuel efficiency and modified for extra pollution. Up ahead we see a teenager who has just been kicked out of their parent’s house for being gay, a house containing a meth lab, six churches, and a neighbor wielding an AR-15 ‘just in case’.”

  • BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wow, it’s like the third recent green text where anon is talking about real world stuff in a grown-up way.

    So anon turned out all right in the end?!

  • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    1 year ago

    We’re not going to stop them. They are an emergent phenomenon of American society. So many things would have to change that this country would be unrecognizable. Which might be awesome… but it’s not going to happen anytime soon.

    • DrQuickbeam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Norway all had a culture of gun ownership, went through a mass shooting, put severe restrictions on gun ownership, and had dramatic drops in gun violence. All those other countries have similar mental illness rates and other things people blame mass shootings on.

      • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah man. I’m not saying that guns aren’t the main issue. We have more guns than people here. It isn’t gonna change though-- especially not right now. Gun purchasing seems to be accelerating if anything. Yes, if you or I could snap our fingers and have all guns disappear, that would do it. Actually getting from where we are now to where those other countries are does not seem like a very clear or likely path. I simply cannot imagine the US as we know it becoming that other place.

        • psud@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          When Australia banned semi-auto firearms and handguns for general ownership, I was hearing about hiding guns from gun owners around me

          If they did, they’ve kept it quiet, and probably left them buried

          But really almost all the banned guns were sold to the government during the buy back, and due to the amnesty many previously illegal weapons were also turned in

          It went really well as the worst people for owning guns also really wanted the cash for turning them in, and if they hide them, they’re hiding them against an imagined future crash, and cannot really bring them out normally

      • hglman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The issue is that attempting gun restrictions will cause an extremely violent backlash. The reality is that the United States is going to face ever more violence before enough people suffer enough to change.

        • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Those restrictions didn’t do anything because they targeted the groups of guns and owners who aren’t actually being used in crime or shooting people.

          There are sane things you can do that actually help, like requiring safety courses and having regular background checks. Canada already does this and the Conservatives didn’t touch this.

          Then there are things which arguably do not increase safety but do increase burdens on gun owners and society, like forcing people to register bolt-action hunting rifles (used very rarely in crime), or secure an ATT (Authorization To Transport) every time you want to move a gun literally anywhere, including to hunt or shoot at the range. These are the things the Conservatives changed to make less overbearing because no one could prove they actually help and they were costing a great deal of money. Fun fact: restricted guns are still registered in Canada, and that includes nearly all legal handguns.

    • lingh0e@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can ABSOLUTELY make a good point about mass shootings being the result of mental health disorders or domestic violence, and we should ABSOLUTELY be doing what we can as a society to fix those problems… but we can’t ignore the 100% common denominator in literally every mass shooting… which is guns.

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        45
        ·
        1 year ago

        The rest of the world has deep, deep family problems, too. Yet doesn’t have these problems.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          And a lot of it has guns too.

          The biggest outlier with guns in America is the politicization and them.

          Look at Scandinavia, where gun ownership is incredibly high and many firearm laws less-strict than in the US: It’s a region of the world that has most of its shit figured out, and having guns there isn’t a big deal because the rate of violence is so low.

          Here in the US, we’ve got a broken social system, essentially zero mental health care for those who really need it, easy access to firearms, and hyper-politicization around firearms that pushes mentally-unstable people towards gun ownership.

          When the unstable conspiracy-theory nutjobs hear liberals saying that gun ownership is bad they’re predictably start stocking up on guns and ammo - specifically the black guns the political left keeps trying to ban. And then they snap.

          That’s how the guns that make up about 1% of overall firearm deaths started being used much more frequently in mass shootings.

          We do need an honest national conversation about guns and their availability, but neither side of the political aisle is willing to really, truly be honest in their policies towards firearms. So we aren’t able to have that conversation and what we end up with is the worst of all outcomes.

          • III@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            This isn’t a both sides thing.

            Democrats support better gun regulation and better social services. Republicans fight against better gun regulation and fight against better social services. Just because Republican’s need to rally their base by gleefully twisting any reasonable regulation into “they’re taking our guns” doesn’t mean the liberal side is being dishonest.

            You can’t blame liberal policies for being dishonest when pretty much that they have pushed for is completely reasonable. Only one party is being dishonest here.

            • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Democratic gun policies don’t target the guns used most-often in mass shootings or homicides.

              They often target cosmetic features, or write laws that actively interfere with development of safety features.

              A prime example of the latter was a 2002 New Jersey law that would have outlawed the sale of any firearm without smart safety features once ANY gun with smart features became available.

              That basically made all manufacturers immediately stop all progress on developing the technology, because releasing it would essentially crater their entire catalog of products. Therefore there’s been zero commercially-viable smart guns released to the market for over 20 years.

              More recently, the ATF re-interpreted a decision regarding the definition of a stock 10 years after a new category of arm braces hit the market. The stabilizing braces were specifically submitted to the ATF for review before ever being made available to the public, and cleared by the Obama-era ATF.

              Now they’ve changed their position arbitrarily, and now an estimated 20 million gun owners who purchased a firearm legally are committing a felony by owning it, and the vast majority of them don’t even know about it.

              There’s constant talk on the political left about the “gun show loophole.”

              There’s no such thing. There’s zero firearm sales rules that don’t apply at a gun show. Hell - on the background check form (ATF 4473) there’s even a box to check for when the background check is being performed at a gun show instead of the dealer’s normal location.

              But any licensed firearms dealer still has to go through the normal process at the gun show. Private sellers don’t, but private sellers never have to go through the process (biggest issue that needs to be addressed in my opinion), so the gun show has nothing to do with it.

              You also hear about gun laws on one state not mattering because of the less-strict laws in a neighboring state.

              Contrary to popular belief, all long-gun sales have to follow the laws and procedures of birth the state where the purchase takes place AND the state where the purchaser lives. When I was a gun salesman in Texas and a California resident tried to buy a gun from me, I had to follow all of California’a processes as well as Texas’s, and I could only sell a long gun that was legal in California.

              Why do I use “long guns” as a qualifier? Because the transfer of any handgun to an out of state resident is a federal crime. That applies to dealers as well as private individuals whether the handgun is sold or gifted. My sister lives out of state and if I die none of my pistols can be left to her without committing a felony.

              My point is this: most people on the political left don’t know shit about guns, existing gun laws, or what would truly be effective. And when they TRY to write dumbass laws their ignorance poisons the well and makes gun owners who might otherwise support good ideas like improved background checks, cracking down on straw purchasers, making NICS available to private citizens, and more get super defensive.

              It’s like when a 90yo who has never owned a computer tries to regulate the Internet without knowing the first thing about technology. They fuck it up and just make matters worse.

              Yes, Republicans are monsters who don’t give 2 shits about murder victims. Despite the fact that firearms are a huge hobby of mine I vote Dem every election.

              But the Democrats trying to write gun laws are usually no different than the Republicans who say that snow storms are proof that global warming is a hoax.

              Honest debate needs honesty from both sides, and the first part of intellectual honesty is being able to admit when you don’t understand something.

              • III@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Repeatedly trying to pin blame on Democrats for a lack of change in gun regulation only further exposes your actual goal here, and that isn’t to have an honest conversation. Going as far as claiming they know nothing about guns or gun laws, comparing them to climate change deniers, is a pretty bold stance to take on something you clearly don’t understand. No matter how much you need to spread this disingenuous stance, it isn’t a both sides issue. If it was, Republicans would entertain the debate - they do not. If Republicans were interested at all they would propose their own valuable legislation - instead they call for thoughts and prayers for the dead children they refuse to protect and say it is too soon to even discuss how to solve this. It is not both sides. Even if Democrats were as dumb as you hope to sell here, they are actually at the table trying. Republicans are too busy choosing money over protecting children. Not both sides at all.

                And intellectual honesty requires more than admitting when you don’t understand - it means leaving your lies and agenda at the door, neither of which you appear capable of doing.

                Oh and nice job dropping your previous social services point on this one, losing battle for your agenda. How very honest of you.

          • PatFusty@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            crickets

            Nobody will argue against you because you are right. It’s just not sexy

          • EvokerKing@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s literally like saying we should ban cars purely because they cause car accidents… It affects way more people than it needs to and is ultimately very messy and costly. If they found a better way of teaching car safety or making it so people who are too much of an idiot to drive can’t drive, that would make more sense, even if it takes time and effort. Edit: oops replied to the wrong message.

            • Duchess of Waves@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              That is another thing worth comparing: A driving licence in the US costs between $20 and $500. Practically no training required. In Germany it costs €2000-€4000 with a lot of theoretical and practical lessons. And that is the reason why you are allowed to drive at 250kmh at the Autobahn.

            • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean while we’re at it we should dramatically reduce the necessity and prevalence of cars. Car culture sucks socially, economically, and ecologically.

              • EvokerKing@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                And yet still there isn’t really a good alternative… Public transportation is slow and annoying, trains are near impossible for America to create now and still also have the issue of there only being certain times you can use it.

                • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It took decades to get into this car hell and it’s going to take decades to get out. There would need to be some short term pain for long term gain. Unfortunately that is like humanity’s top weakness.

                  I live in NYC and use public transit every day. It’s not perfect but I’d take it over a car-first model any day.

    • heavy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think this is a good problem to solve, however in tandem with other problems enabling access to weapons and subsequent deaths of many innocent people.

        • Sgt_choke_n_stroke@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          easy and cheap ways to buy guns

          create a system with no hope to move up in life when you’re poor

          have a news media that creates paranoia, to sell ads

          Yea it’s sooooo weird “How the FUCK is captialism the cause of mass shootings lol”

          • PatFusty@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You guys use the term capitalism like if it was the boogeyman. Its just not relevant here, all of those things can happen without capitalism. Dont shoehorn a topic you barely understand

            • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              People that critique capitalism tend to do it a lot because it drives a substantial portion of human activity right now. Capitalism is probably the primary driver of all violence in the US so it seems relevant. Under a socialist system, there could be lower levels of isolation and inequality, no incentive for gun companies to increase profits so they wouldn’t market their guns to every person in America, etc. The defense industry is massive and tied directly to the issue of mass shooters. And when you say ‘fix the household,’ what does that mean other than dismantle capitalism?

          • Halosheep@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Those things aren’t exclusive to or indicative of a capitalistic society. The latter two reasons you describe also exist in authoritarian socialist and communist countries, yet those don’t lead to mass shootings.

            In fact, there are capitalist countries that have easy access to guns that don’t experience mass shootings on the scale of the US. Look at Canada, for example, who rank 7th in gun ownership per capita but have experienced four total mass shootings compared to 101 in the USA. (sauce: https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country/ and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country)

            I don’t think capitalism is the best system, especially not on its own, but none of the responses I’ve gotten have argued why capitalism is the cause of mass shootings. There are way too many cultural and historical factors involved to say that it’s exclusively the fault of the economic structure of the US.

            You guys can all downvote as much as you want but it seems no one actually has anything more to say than “capitalism bad” so they harvest some internet points.

            • Nudding@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The nra is allowed to “lobby” the government to tell them all how great guns are. How do you retards not see that’s a problem with capitalism lol.

              • Halosheep@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Is a government caving in to the interests of the rich exclusive to capitalism?

                I think you’d probably have a more sound argument if you spent less time calling people retards and instead actually argued your point. Unless you really don’t know why you hate capitalism other than that it’s the spooky boogeyman for lemmy users.

                • Nudding@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Is a government caving in to the interests of the rich exclusive to capitalism?

                  I don’t know, I haven’t tried the other sorts of economic organization! Let’s find out, yeah?

        • dhtseany@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because unchecked capitalism means paying people as little as possible to maximize profits, which means people are underpaid which causes undue stress at home which leads to bad shit happening.

          • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            People are like “ooh it’s so complicated everything is complex, you can’t sum up issues in one or two sentences.” But I can’t really argue with this, like shouldn’t this be obvious to everyone? People are stressed, we can’t afford to live, it seems like our world is going to die in a few decades, all directly tied to our socioeconomic paradigm of capitalism. Of course people are going to start freaking out.

          • Halosheep@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Are you implying that people aren’t stressed outside of a capitalistic society? Just because capitalism leads some to high levels of stress doesn’t mean nothing else does.

        • Fraylor@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Rampant profiteering off of the backs of laborers for the sake of the few. You think those laborers have the ability to maintain a happy and balanced home life after being exploited by capitalists?

          • Halosheep@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Workers are exploited in nearly all forms of economic structure. How does profiteering lead to mass shootings?

            • Fraylor@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you can’t connect rampant class related abuse to mental health issues, and then to violence, you have no fucking idea about anything regarding the human condition. In fact your breath is starting to smell of boot leather.

              • Halosheep@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Brother you’re literally not arguing why capitalism is the cause of this still. All you have is personal attacks and loose correlations. Class abuse is not exclusive to capitalism. Mental health issues are not exclusive to capitalism.

                Weak af.

        • Leviathan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Tons of lobbying money goes into making sure those laws never happen, shootings cause a rise in firearm sales. Rinse, repeat. Any talk of well regulated militia bullshit is just lip service to the useful idiots who keep them rich.

    • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I do wonder why mass shootings weren’t nearly as common before 1980s/1990s, when the United States had even less gun control than we do now. There is more to it than just access to guns for sure. Don’t get me wrong, I still think stricter gun control would most definitely help, but I wonder what other factors are causing the number of mass shootings to go up.

      • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Rising economic inequality is my guess. It’s very easy to lash out in anger and violence when everything about society tells you that you are a loser.

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        The rise of conservative media, probably. You’ve had decades of fox news and talk radio doing their thing, and now we have stochastic terrorism.

        • III@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Couple that with the concentrated conservative efforts to reduce the quality of education in America - less educated people are more susceptible to those conservative media tactics. They can’t keep control over all of the craziness they peddle, look at the House of Representatives - they lost the plot and now we are stuck dealing with the shit show they cultivated.

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s not going to happen in the lifetime of anyone who can read this comment.

      Because it requires more than a majority of Congress, it also requires 3/4 of the 50 states to vote to ratify it. Only takes 13 states voting NO to prevent it, and there are plenty more red states than that who would never give up our rights so foolishly.

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      It has taken on a life of its own and has been twisted to the breaking point by gun nutters. It is never enough for them and any push back is like pulling teeth. They have become the terrorist at this point and there is no reason to negotiate anymore.

      • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        See it from their perspective: every time they’ve given an inch, grabbers took a mile. If you want to get concessions you’re going to need to give some too.

            • Doomsider@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Dunno, how do you convince a racist person not to be racist? A flat-earther that the world is round? An anti-abortionist that birth control is the most effective way to prevent abortion?

              The answer is you don’t. They are just wrong.

                • Doomsider@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  When women got the right to vote did they try and rationalize with the misogynist? Maybe they could meet them half way and say women only get half a vote instead of a full vote? Does that sound like a good compromise to you!

                  It is like every major social change could have never happened because they would have to “enforce what they thought was right”. Slaves would need to convince the slavers and find some middle ground. Maybe be slaves half the year to appease them.

                  The problem is your are not only dealing with someone who is wrong in the case of gun nutters but they are daring you to come get their precious guns threatening your life. It is in essence terroristic in nature. There is no compromise with terrorists.

                  So yes, we tell them they are wrong. We grow up and stop giving in to terrorists. Laws are changed but more importantly society changes. Those that can reflect on this and accept they were wrong change or maybe the rest all die of old age. We move on and get past this.

    • darq@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      It will never be enough. Look at the responses in this thread and elsewhere. It will never be enough. There is no price too high that it won’t happily be paid. There is no regulation small enough that it will be accepted. They have made that exceptionally clear.

      There is no negotiation with them. You will never convince them. It doesn’t matter if the regulation works or not.

        • darq@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t even think it’s a might-makes-right issue yet. They have guns, sure. But that’s still basically nothing in the face of government force.

          My point was more along the lines of that in all of these gun control discussions, there are mistaken expectations from a lot of liberal people.

          Liberals keep engaging in this conversation as if it were a negotiation between reasonable people trying to find common ground. That if the cost of a lack of regulation grows too high, that if they make the right arguments, that if they offer the right compromises, they can move towards moderate gun control.

          But that’s not what’s happening. The gun lobby has repeatedly shown that any regulation, no matter how small, will be viewed the same way as a complete forcible disarming, and will be opposed with the same vigour. And that there is no cost of human life that will ever change that.

          For the 2nd Amendment types, the conversation is already over. Everything they say is meaningless, because they don’t actually care if what they say is true, they don’t care if the regulation works or not. They are just saying things to shut down the discourse, and if you counter them, they’ll just move on to the next point like nothing has changed. Because to them nothing has changed.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    On the bright side, at thanks to trans people, people finally give a shit about women’s sports. For incredibly bigoted and superficial reasons but hey the wnbc will take it.

  • Clot@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    The gun laws in US are joke, why even allow people to have guns? what is police for?

    • rchive@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The public indiscriminate kind, gang violence kind, or the 3 kids shot a gun once goofing off in their school parking lot kind?

      • Goblin_Mode@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        public indiscriminate kind

        What does that even mean? Indiscriminately killing people in public? Like a mass shooting? Lol

        gang violence kind

        “Person opens fire into church killing 5 and injuring 12”

        “that’s a mass shooter”

        “the gunman was wearing red and those killed wore blue”

        “that’s gang violence”

        Do you see how stupid that take is?

        3 kids shot a gun once goofing off in their school parking lot kind

        Oh my bad I thought you were being genuine, this is obviously bait, please carry on

        • rchive@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Some lists of “mass shootings” include only the public indiscriminate kind, which is what basically everyone thinks of when they hear the phrase “mass shooting,” but some do include actual gang violence (turf war) or other violence based around other crime (drug deal gone bad). Your red shirt blue shirt scenario is cute, but that would still probably be the public indiscriminate kind. The two phenomena are very different.

          There was an article from a big US news source a few years ago about how there had been over a hundred school shootings in the US that year. Can’t remember which source. The list of events included many that happened near a school or on school property but only incidentally. There was at least one where kids shot a gun in a school parking lot when no one else was around. Of course that’s still a problem, but again that’s a very different phenomenon than a “school shooting” where someone tries to murder 20 students. That’s why I brought that up.

  • r3df0x ✡️✝☪️@7.62x54r.ru
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Republicans know multiple causes and contributions that lead to mass shootings, but none of them will support doing anything to address those causes because muh socialism.

  • Tangled Slinky@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just dropping in to ask if anyone has that image. I need it to win several arguments I’m currently having on the internet.