I realize this is a divisive issue, but it’s clear that these horrific incidents are going to keep happening with shocking regularity. It seems we’ve all collectively shrugged our shoulders and accepted it as the reality going forward.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      12·
      8 months ago

      True, but thr person I replied to said

      There is a huge difference though.

      It’s the same reason why people start flame wars on the internet: it can be done quickly. People used to start arguments over the mail too, but they were much rarer because by the time you’ve written a letter and walked to the mailbox your temper has cooled down and you decide not to do it.

      Guns make it really easy to do harm in the heat of the moment. You can flip and immediately go on a rampage. If you have to go to the hardware store, buy shit, drive back home, assemble the bomb, etc. you have plenty of time to think it over and cool down.

      This is the very reason there is a waiting period when buying a gun in some states.

      They were clearly talking about mass casualty events not being planned, but the issue is that regardless of rarity OF said mass casualty events (which also speaks volumes to not dictating policy over .001% of something), this does not reflect reality as they are overwhelmingly planned.

      • PoopingCough@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        8 months ago

        I disagree; to me it sounds like they’re talking about crimes of passion like gunning down a spouse etc. These are the majority of gun homicides but you don’t hear about them much because one or two people killed isn’t ‘newsworthy’ on it’s own anymore. True mass shootings are infrequent comparatively but because of that and by their nature they’re what we hear about. True we shouldn’t be regulating based on relatively infrequent tragedies but they can draw attention to firearm homicides as a whole which are a serious issue and not always related to mental health issues in the same way.

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          21·
          8 months ago

          I disagree; to me it sounds like they’re talking about crimes of passion like gunning down a spouse

          Well, no you don’t (disagree with me or what it really targets) then, because that’s exactly what I’m saying.

          You may disagree with my assesment that they are clearly talking about mass shootings, but A) Doubtful, because of all them context clues I bolded, and B) I’ll ask after I post this reply, simple solution.

          Actually the majority is gang/drug related (well, drug prohibition related. Legalization would help more than most people are willing to admit to themselves). 51% of our violent crime actually comes from just 2% of our counties, it’s actually mostly a pretty localized issue.

          https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/

          Though you are correct in that by far spousal murder outpaces mass casualty events, which themselves only account for .001% of gun crime in the US. 'Course, a spouse is about the easiest person you can kill wothout a gun seeing as you ostensibly sleep in the same bed or possibly one cooks who can drug things, or drug a drink, and then it’s trivial if you’re already damaged enough to make that decision.

          Firearms homicides are a serious issue, yes, by a factor of 12-14k/yr. However, the “disprove good guy with gun ‘myth’” low estimate of defensive gun uses per year is 100k. 100k is clearly more than 14k or 12k by far, this suggests that since people currently legally defend themselves more often than they fall victim, an outright ban on legal gun ownership could likely have an opposite effect than intended.