• Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    You know what’s a good way to prevent shootings? People not having guns. You guys in the US should try that sometimes…

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      OR…we could actually tackle the problem at it’s core and create meaningful changes that would curb the violence over all without even touching guns:

      • Ending the War on Drugs

      • Ending Qualified immunity

      • Properly funding our schools and not just rich white suburb schools.

      • Build more schools and hire more teachers for proper pay so the class room sizes aren’t 30-40 kids for one teacher.

      • Single Payer healthcare

      • UBI (at least start talking about it) once AI takes over most of the blue collar jobs.

      • End for profit prisons

      • Enforce the laws already on the books

      • Make sure there are safety nets for poor families so the kids don’t turn to violence/gangs to survive.

      • Increase the minimum wage

      • Recreate our mental healthcare so kids don’t turn to the internet for support. And to help veterans not end up as a suicide number.

      • Actively make a law to solidify Pro-choice rights. More unwanted children do not help our situation.

      • Banning Insider Trading for Congress

      • Term limits

      • Ranked Choice Voting so we can move away from a 2 party system

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

          Yea gun control isn’t solving shit. We don’t have a gun problem we have a society one…mexico has some of the strictest gun control out there but tons of deaths. Same with Brazil… it’s society.

          • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, let us just fix all the society problems real quick. Then we only have to worry abour kids killing themselves and each other with random guns lying around, some suicides, and very occasional family feuds turning murders. But that all is a very reasonable price to pay, those are just people, who the fuck cares.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or we could just touch guns instead of pretending we only need to completely fix every aspect of our society instead.

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

          450+ million firearms. When they effectively banned firearms in Australia…60% was the turn in rate. You know how many millions will be left? Which the majority will stay in the crimals hands? And that’s if 60% handed them in. It’s not happening

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            270 million fewer firearms sounds great. Australia’s 60% turn in rate wasn’t 100% and it worked, and having fewer firearms in circulation means fewer firearm deaths and fewer firearms available to criminals and a continual reduction over time as new firearms aren’t added to the system.

            Gun nuts just throw shit at the wall to see what sticks. Sometimes it’s that all those guns aren’t a problem, sometimes it’s that it’s too big a problem. You’re just tedious.

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

              Australia had around 1mil firearms in civ hands, they also didn’t have anywhere near the level of violence we do. Those 270mil firearms will come from mainly people who collect them. It won’t magically make the other 180mil safer. Most criminals get their firearms from straw purchases, not theft.

              • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Australia had around 1mil firearms in civ hands, they also didn’t have anywhere near the level of violence we do.

                It’s almost like they impact each other.

                Those 270mil firearms will come from mainly people who collect them.

                Great. Find a new goddamned hobby that doesn’t end up distributing guns into communities through theft and careless transfers. Not to mention when one of those “collectors” just decides it’s time to start killing people like the Las Vegas shooter.

                Most criminals get their firearms from straw purchases, not theft.

                Buyback should be paired with greatly restricted purchasing. Fewer and harder purchases with more tracking means fewer straw purchases and over time fewer guns. Machine guns are hard and expensive to get in part because you’re not allowed to make or sell new ones.

                Or, if you contend it’s really just straw purchases that are the problem (and want to ignore the legally purchased guns used in crimes all the time), then lets lock that down. Register every gun, require background checks for every sale, and hold the last known owner liable if it’s used in a crime and wasn’t reported stolen.

                  • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Nah, people can still have hunting weapons as regulated by local ordinance and enjoy their right to bear arms in well-regulated militias.

            • Armen12@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, now Australia is having their human rights stripped away at an alarming rate. What a victory for liberty!

        • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I wish you the best of luck in addressing that symptom in a society where such bans aren’t commonly-supported, where the law isn’t conducive to such, where there’s such an incredible established base of ownership, and where “fuck the government and/or police” is the prevailing theme.

          By all means, when you’ve discovered some way of meaningfully and feaaibly surmounting these, share with the class. You’ll be the first to have done so.

          Meanwhile, the rest of us will focus on the root issues - the pressures toward violence - rather than only caring someone decided to use a rifle to when finally pushed to the brink.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ending the War on Drugs

        Sure. So do you mean fully legalizing all drugs for recreational use? Or just not cracking down on pot? Or something in between? I’d want to know exactly what you mean by this one, in detail.

        Ending Qualified immunity

        Disagree. Dramatically limit Qualified Immunity, but don’t eliminate it entirely. Sometimes violating a law is required in the process of enforcing other laws. So, only extend qualified immunity as far as the officer in question can prove to a jury that the officer’s violation was actually required for law enforcement.

        Properly funding our schools and not just rich white suburb schools.

        Since schools are run at the state level, the simplest way to do this would be to pool all the tax revenue ear marked for schools at the state level and distribute based on student population. Something like $X + $Y/student, as some costs are basically fixed but others directly scale with student body size.

        Build more schools and hire more teachers for proper pay so the class room sizes aren’t 30-40 kids for one teacher.

        The previous item would probably directly fix this for the worst outliers.

        Single Payer healthcare

        Obvious. Sure, it’ll raise everyone’s taxes but well implemented it would raise everyone’s taxes by less than what they are already paying for insurance + copays. The rough part would be when it first happens, as a bunch of people who have been avoiding medical care that wasn’t going to immediately kill them for financial reasons flood the system in the first months under it.

        UBI (at least start talking about it) once AI takes over most of the blue collar jobs.

        This is one of those things where it, something very like it, or some drastic change in the entire economic system is going to happen, and it would probably be better for everyone if it was well thought out. I’m personally fond of the idea of UBI + single payer healthcare, removing most other forms of public assistance aside from a few narrowly targeted programs (single payer eliminates most of your health care government programs, UBI replaces at least SNAP and TANF, etc). Then, eliminate the minimum wage, replacing it with a maximium wage (essentially the total compensation of the highest compensated employee must be no more than X% of the median employee or Y% of the lowest paid employee, whichever is lower - the C-suite can’t get a raise without the workers getting one too).

        End for profit prisons

        Another obvious one.

        Enforce the laws already on the books

        Your literal first item is specifically about not enforcing laws already on the books, and the second is about limiting what an officer can do to enforce the laws already on the books. I assume you have specific laws in mind with this item?

        Make sure there are safety nets for poor families so the kids don’t turn to violence/gangs to survive.

        UBI/single payer would already solve this.

        Increase the minimum wage

        This is very much a choose one or the other sort of thing - do you want UBI or a high minimum wage? Because they solve the same problem, and the UBI solution also doesn’t indirectly harm people who were making more than the new minimum wage but not dramatically more.

        Actively make a law to solidify Pro-choice rights. More unwanted children do not help our situation.

        This should have been done 40 years ago. Roe was a shoddy decision from a legal standpoint. While I’m pro-choice from a policy standpoint, Roe was never more than a band-aid and should never have been treated as more than a band-aid.

        Banning Insider Trading for Congress

        Another obvious one. Though that would make them easier to bribe, so that might require additional enforcement. Maybe make them keep their assets in a blind trust while holding office.

        Term limits

        For who? Everyone? Just Senate? Just the House? All of Congress? SCOTUS? How many terms? This is one of those things where a lot of details are sorely needed.

        Ranked Choice Voting so we can move away from a 2 party system

        Sure. Either Ranked Choice, Preference, or something else that approximates the Condorcet winner.

        This is all pretty typical progressive policy positions but out of the entire list only 2-3 are actually about gun violence. No amount of term limits, ranked choice voting, or cracking down on Congressional insider trading is going to impact gun violence, for example.

        • mommykink@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I started reading your comment expecting to disagree with a lot of what you said but ended up doing the opposite. You seem like an intelligent person. Maximum wage in particular is something I’ve never heard of but seems good in theory. I could see this being easily circumvented by corporations just registering their different departments as their own businesses though.

          • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s just a question of implementation. You could easily do something like count wholly owned subsidiaries as part of the parent corporation.

            The whole point of a maximum wage is that it essentially creates a curve for compensation - the more the top gets paid, the more at least half the employees have to be paid and the more the bottom employees have to be paid.

            This means that huge corps like Amazon and WalMart have to pay substantially more to be able to pay what the executives they want will demand but small businesses operating on thin margins can get away with lower pay. Which means it simultaneously promotes small business and does a measure of wealth redistribution from the obscenely wealthy.

            Also UBI and minimum wage solve the same problem and UBI does it better so it makes sense to go with UBI and drop minimum wage.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ok… what do you tell the parents of children that will get killed in the meantime? Because your solution is a good way to solve the issue in 30 years.

        • shinratdr@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          30 years!? If the US does five of these things in the next 50 years I’ll eat my hat.

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

                Source on the 15? Because your article dates from 2018.

                What’s the leading cause of child mortality in the USA?

                What’s the leading cause of child mortality in the Canada?

                I’m using both these countries because they’re very close, geographically and culturally…

                Hint: One starts with a G and it’s not the same as the other!

                Edit: By the way, I didn’t bring up school shootings, just child death, funny you tried to switch it to school shootings only…

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

                    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761

                    Nope, firearms… and have you seen that downward trend on car death as they’re getting safer and safer? Yeah, things don’t look great for the future of your argument bud!

                    And…

                    The database *does not include school shootings in which fewer than four people were killed*, which have become far more common in recent years.

                    Monday's shooting at a private Christian grade school in Nashville marked the 15th time since 1999 that gun violence has left *four or more* dead in a school in the United States.

                    2 dead and 10 more hurt? Not a mass shooting based on their definition.

                    Yeah… so you’re wrong.

                    Oh and, that’s just schools, funny that you assume that children deaths related to guns only happen in schools.

                • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Which is largely irrelevant; try comparing our rates of child death by violence overall to other countries. I think you’ll be surprised at how the US stacks up.

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

                    It’s not irrelevant to what I was saying in the first place, that it’s more likely than anywhere else in the world that you would need to explain to parents why their child got killed by a gun yet nothing is done to remove guns from people’s hands.

        • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          They do, however, provide the necessary institutions to reduce pressures and otherwise provide de-escalation options preventing those individuals from wanting to “go shoot up a school,office,building or anything”.

          That would be the entire point to addressing the actual underlying issues.

    • Danc4498@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s also talks like this (or rather the threat of this) that got Trump elected. Guns in America are not going away.

      • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        One could suspect blue team politics of having stock in Ruger etc. given the sheer extent to which firearm sales spike every time in reaction to blue team’s nonsensical ban rhetoric.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s just idiots being idiots and an election system that doesn’t make sense.

        Gun owners that are dumb enough to make gun ownership their only compass to decide who to vote for even if it goes against their general best interests would have voted Republican no matter who was there as a candidate.

        In the meantime here’s reality when you’re the country with the most guns/people

        https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Gun owners that are dumb enough to make gun ownership their only compass to decide who to vote for even if it goes against their general best interests would have voted Republican no matter who was there as a candidate.

          There are a lot of single issue voters out there, who will vote for whoever takes their stance on their one issue regardless of anything else.

          Frankly, this is one Democrats need to drop - any bill they might pass is either a violation of citizen’s constitutional rights or isn’t going to do much to curb actual gun violence. At the same time “Democrats want to take away your constitutional right to bare arms” is one of the easiest wedges to draw people to vote for ever-shittier Republicans. And most of the people doing the shooting don’t particularly care if their gun is owned legally or not.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            The Constitution has been amended in the past and could still be amended and it wouldn’t be the first time that an amendment removed a right to ownership.

            • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Right, but that requires, you know, amending the Constitution. Which requires 3/4 of the states sign on. 3/4 of the states are not going to sign on to throwing out the 2nd Amendment. 2/3 of states wouldn’t sign on to that. I don’t think you could even get 1/2 of the states to sign on to that.

              Especially because no Republican is going to vote for it, and neither is anyone representing a rural area. And we’re talking state legislatures, and Dems aren’t great at expanding their influence in state legislatures.

                • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Is there a threshold of sensationalism of such events that changes the number of states required to ratify the thing? That would change the number of supporting Congressional members?

                  I’m amazed you still believe this is feasible despite the lack of support for such a measure.

                  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The number of states required doesn’t change, but maybe people will someday realise that the number of deaths by guns in the USA is ridiculous and they’ll vote for people who want to solve the issue.

        • Danc4498@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re preaching to the choir. But that doesn’t change anything. Those idiots are a massive number of voters, and they were willing to elect an obvious terrible presidential candidate because of the threat of losing their guns.

          Even if democrats wanted this, there is literally no path we could take towards this. So saying, “get rid of your guns and you won’t have a problem” is the least helpful thing somebody could say.

          • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Have you considered… not making the threat?

            No, surely it’s the voter’s faults for rejecting candidates for their stated positions…

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Guns aren’t the issue that makes fascists vote fascist. Even if you make gun violence activist shut up completely they’ll just lie and say they’re under threat anyway or that trans people are going to steal their children or Christians will be banned from buying gas stoves. Every single Democrat not appropriately muzzling themselves isn’t what causes Republicans to vote Republican.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes please use the GVA as a source of truth…NPR and Mother Jones both called out that site as bullshit.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Gotta vote for the fascists so we can have our personal arms in case the fascists take power.