LordFluffy t1_iu5blfs wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Sources: At least 6 people shot outside funeral in Pittsburgh’s Brighton Heights neighborhood by Bustalacklusta
> It’s like there’s a thing we have too many of that keeps causing all of these problems.
Right. Because surely no one would ever commit violence with something else. And the people who carried this out were innocent as lambs until the mean old guns whispered demonic influence into their virgin ears, making them go out and commit heinous acts.
Or, just maybe, it's more complicated than that.
Yousoggyyojimbo t1_iu5bz1d wrote
You don't see the same volume of attacks but just with other things in places that aren't flooded with guns. The ready availability of ideal tools for this shit is a core of the problem.
Hell, the variance in gun violence just between states with tighter and looser gun control shows a hard difference.
LordFluffy t1_iu5cxbc wrote
> You don't see the same volume of attacks but just with other things in places that aren't flooded with guns.
You don't look outside of high GDP countries, then.
You also don't look at the countries you're thinking of prior to the gun controls you'd like us to emulate; you'll find they didn't have our levels of violence then, either.
> The ready availability of ideal tools for this shit is a core of the problem.
No, it isn't. Guns don't provide motive. A killer absent a gun is still a killer that just has to change tactics. A person who's not a killer with a gun is no danger to anyone provided the minimum of awareness and caution.
>Hell, the variance in gun violence just between states with tighter and looser gun control shows a hard difference.
And, as we know, all states are identical in all other ways except gun laws, just like other countries are just the US with fewer Glocks.
Yousoggyyojimbo t1_iu5dcf4 wrote
>You don't look outside of high GDP countries, then.
I like how you started this by framing that the countries that don't agree with your assertion don't count because you don't want them to.
LordFluffy t1_iu5f0hi wrote
> I like how you started this by framing that the countries that don't agree with your assertion don't count because you don't want them to.
My assertions so far are:
- People use things other than guns to kill each other
- Guns are inanimate objects not demons.
Neither of those is untrue and neither of those vary from country to country.
My point is that when you look at countries over time, their homicide rate and their gun laws don't always track like you'd expect. It has nothing to do with what I want or don't want.
My other assertion, delivered passive-aggressively I know, is that the problem of violence in the United States is complicated and does not hinge on any one factor, including means. Even if we limit it to that, there is a whole lot of nuance and footnotes that have to be added.
I know nothing about his incident than people were hurt, a gun or guns was used to do the damage, and it happened at a funeral. I don't know why it happened, if someone was targeted, if it is related to any other issue like crime or domestic abuse, if the guns were acquired legally, recently or anything else. I do, however, know that all of those could affect the "how do we stop things like this from happening in the future" equation.
Tell me what you think we should do and then how do you think we should implement that on a practical level, please. What do you think is the likely outcome?
celebrityDick t1_iu5flnc wrote
> I like how you started this by framing that the countries that don't agree with your assertion don't count because you don't want them to.
Just a countries that don't agree with your assertion don't count because you don't want them to. Call it even then ...?
tehmlem t1_iu5dx9w wrote
Wait, is your argument really "Compare us to poor countries and failed states so we look good?" Why would we not be compared to our economic and political peers which do not have these problems?
LordFluffy t1_iu5fae7 wrote
> Wait, is your argument really "Compare us to poor countries and failed states so we look good?"
No. It's that if you're saying "this doesn't happen anywhere else" you need to put an asterisk behind that because it requires some qualification.
> Why would we not be compared to our economic and political peers which do not have these problems?
We should be. We aren't, however, those countries + guns. There are many differences and I think some of them are just as if not more significant to our rates of violence than firearms.
Bumpass t1_iu5djjf wrote
It takes a lot more to stab someone than it does to wiggle a trigger finger and point.
Your argument is the defensive, overly-simple one, I hear everywhere.
Guns make deaths of other people too attainable for the person using it. An SUV driven by a madman isn't going to drive through classrooms full of kids. A knife can't sweep over a crowd of thousands from a hotel window and kill 60 people.
Guns may not be the only problem. But they're one of our biggest problems. It's a tool for violence. At least my knife can cut some vegetables and my SUV can drive my kids to school. A gun can't do much of anything useful other than harm other living things and people.
[deleted] t1_iu5lrky wrote
[removed]
jpm0724 t1_iu5gwxd wrote
You want me to link you the Franklin regional incident or do you just wanna look it up for yourself?
Bumpass t1_iu5ktij wrote
I know about it.
There have been at least 40 school shootings this year. Responsible for at least 122 deaths. How many people were stabbed to death in us schools this last year?
jpm0724 t1_iu5p4sd wrote
So shooting deaths are more relevant to you than stabbing deaths. Got it. Make sense to only care about the statistics that prove your point. Your way of arguing is divisive. Obviously there’s a need for gun reform, but you’re an absolute idiot if you think for a second that this country, of all countries, wouldn’t remain to have the same issues. You think a war on guns would be any more successful than the war on drugs? If you have that optimism, I envy it. Because the same bad people will do the same bad things with the same bad weapons.
Bumpass t1_iu5w695 wrote
No. Shooting deaths are more numerous. Therefor more relevant.
If I have a swimming pool, and the pool develops two holes - one hole loses 1000 gallons of water per day, the other loses 10 gallon per day - which hole should I patch first to minimize loss of water? The bigger hole. But I will not ignore the other hole; it's repair is triaged to a later time.
Numbers matter. But I won't call you an absolute idiot for disagreeing with that. You're concerned, just as I am. You don't sound like someone who wants people to be hurt by knives or guns. And neither am I. Bad people with illegal weapons scare me too. And I'm not optimistic. I think we're in for a lot more gut wrenching news, because there are a lot of people. And many people are overwhelmed with problems. And some of those people will process what they can't control in their lives, by finding their moment of control in an act of violence. Whether or not guns are the tool for violence.
jpm0724 t1_iu6eulu wrote
We haven’t even started with making it a felony if your weapon is used in a mass casualty event. Think about that!
jpm0724 t1_iu6c4f4 wrote
You’re analogy doesn’t make sense because it compares figurative gallons of water to literal life. It’s the absolute biggest problem, the mental gymnastic it takes to try to point at one thing and call it bad and disregard real life. Real life is, you’re willing to disregard the countless times and ways firearms have helped save lives, wether by existing, or actually being utilized. And that it’s okay to lose those lives in the future, in order to make you feel better today. Your patching a hole thought works better in this regard.
The best part is, people love to point to other countries, and say oh look! They have assault weapons bans, they have hand gun bans, complete fire arm bans, etc. they are not the MOST smuggled country in the world, they are not one of the epicenters of gang violence. They do not have one of the worst prison system and some of the highest recidivism rates. You wanna talk about bandaging the 10 gallon per day problem? Pointing at an inanimate object in one of the most mentally unhinged, corrupt countries on the planet and saying we need to ban it, is that.
LordFluffy t1_iu5gelm wrote
> It takes a lot more to stab someone than it does to wiggle a trigger finger and point.
Yeah, I'm sure your vast combat experience gave you this informed opinion.
All things being equal, a gunshot from most calibers suitable for self defense is going to be more deadly than a knife wound almost always. That said, when it comes to people doing harm to one another, things are never equal. I've seen stories, recent stories, of people killing more people with a knife than another person was able to with a rifle.
But that's just arguing tactics. It also invites the question of how firearms are used in self defense, which I don't think is an insignificant factor.
> Your argument is the defensive, overly-simple one, I hear everywhere.
No, my sarcastic statement is one part of a much larger discussion expressed in the spirit of the comment to which I was responding. Or put another way, you don't know what my argument is.
> An SUV driven by a madman isn't going to drive through classrooms full of kids.
The worst mass shooting in the US killed 60 people and wounded many times that. In Nice, France a guy killed 80 people with a truck. The worst school shooting in the US left 32 people dead. The worst school massacre in the US was carried out with explosives and killed 34, iirc.
You're arguing tactics, not absolutes.
> A knife can't sweep over a crowd of thousands from a hotel window and kill 60 people.
And of course the millionaire with his own plane could not concievably have done anything another way. If he just had knives, he'd have pitched them from the same window. Or not.
> But they're one of our biggest problems.
And again, I disagree with you. If anything, it's a symptom of the problem not the problem itself.
>A gun can't do much of anything useful other than harm other living things and people.
Yes. It's a purpose built weapon. However, sometimes that is called for. Because you can't change a tire with one does not mean that it is useless, just rarely needed.
Head-Ad4690 t1_iu5fj56 wrote
When people commit violence with something else, a lot fewer people die.
LordFluffy t1_iu5h1i4 wrote
Really?
A guy a couple of days ago killed two people in a school. He had 600 rounds of ammo.
Back a number of years ago, a guy shot up a Waffle House with a similar rifle; they still put the incident in infographics. He killed four.
A few weeks back, a guy killed 10 in Canada in a stabbing spree.
In 2016, a guy stabbed 19 seniors to death with a pocket knife and injured over 20 more.
In some times, in some places, I'd even say more frequently, you're correct. But again, tactics. Not absolutes.
Head-Ad4690 t1_iu5iocf wrote
Yes, really.
The worst mass shooting in the US killed 58 people. #2 killed 49. There have been 9 that killed more than 20.
Can you find me an instance where someone stabbed over 50 people to death?
There’s a reason the Army sends soldiers into battle with guns, not just knives.
LordFluffy t1_iu5jda8 wrote
> Can you find me an instance where someone stabbed over 50 people to death?
One individual, no. Highest I know of there is 19.
However, the Nice Truck attack killed 87. Wounded more than Vegas, too.
Arguing. Tactics.
> There’s a reason the Army sends soldiers into battle with guns, not just knives.
Yes, guns are effective weapons. The Army generally isn't trying to indiscriminately kill unarmed people, though, which does change the equation a lot.
Head-Ad4690 t1_iu5k93o wrote
And yet, there are still vastly more gun attacks, and vastly more victims of those attacks, than with trucks or knives.
If they’re just as effective, why do these murdering bastards bother with guns?
There are a lot of times where armies do set out to indiscriminately kill people. In modern times, they always use guns to do it, or worse things.
LordFluffy t1_iu5klmb wrote
> And yet, there are still vastly more gun attacks, and vastly more victims of those attacks, than with trucks or knives.
Yep. And yet, you are still missing the point.
> If they’re just as effective...
Show me where I claimed they were and I'll tell you.
Head-Ad4690 t1_iu5kvmn wrote
I said a lot fewer people die when other weapons are used, and your response was, “Really?” Followed by examples attempting to refute my statement.
If your point isn’t that other weapons are just as effective as guns, then what is your point exactly?
LordFluffy t1_iu5lu69 wrote
> I said a lot fewer people die when other weapons are used, and your response was, “Really?” Followed by examples attempting to refute my statement.
You stated an absolute that should have been a conditional. I backed my refutation with examples. If you'd bothered to read all the words, you'd have seen this too:
> In some times, in some places, I'd even say more frequently, you're correct.
> If your point isn’t that other weapons are just as effective as guns, then what is your point exactly?
That guns don't cause crime any more than matches cause housefires. What causes it are people deciding they're going to go kill some other people. They then avail themselves of whatever means they have at their disposal that are likely to do the job. If they don't have any one particular means, they have options, and will likely adapt their approach to accommodate for any deficiencies.
The hope is that if we ban this one way to hurt people or even severely limit access to it, stories like this one will be sad history, not daily events. I think that's naive; a LOT has to change before that becomes true and there are no, and I do mean no, quick solutions. I think it would be best that we look at things from a holistic perspective and address the more essential causes of violence.
Otherwise, what you have is a bet: The number of lives saved by limited access to guns will outnumber the lives that would be saved by defensive uses that are hindered by the same restrictions.
I just have never thought that was a good bet.
Need any clarification?
Head-Ad4690 t1_iu5o847 wrote
Yeah: what about my statement needs to be conditional?
Are you just looking for an “on average” or “usually” tacked on, or what?
LordFluffy t1_iu5ovhu wrote
"Usually" or "most often" seems accurate. Even "the majority of the time".
Head-Ad4690 t1_iu5p4nd wrote
My statement was general and such things aren’t expected to apply to every single instance. Without any qualifiers, it can be and is intended to be read as applying to the aggregate. You just misinterpreted it in the one way that would make it wrong, then went on a rant against that misinterpretation. Congrats.
LordFluffy t1_iu5qe2j wrote
> Congrats
Did you limber up before you made that stretch?
Head-Ad4690 t1_iu5qja7 wrote
You managed to interpret my general statement as something like “every single imaginable instance of mass murder would be less deadly with another weapon than with a gun” when that is clearly not what it said, and somehow I’m the one stretching?
LordFluffy t1_iu5qqbg wrote
I can only read what you wrote.
I've also had this conversation enough to know that when people make such statements it's less implied "most often" and more implied "in so many that any others are statistically insignificant".
Head-Ad4690 t1_iu5r1hs wrote
And what’s wrong with that, exactly? The gun will be more deadly the vast majority of the time.
LordFluffy t1_iu5rajp wrote
> The gun will be more deadly the vast majority of the time.
"Vast" I think is an overstatement.
And again, this is centering the conversation on one means of violence in the US which I think is myopic.
Head-Ad4690 t1_iu5rg0i wrote
Well, I don’t think it’s an overstatement. Again, the people to whom it matters most, the mass-murdering fuckheads, nearly always choose a gun when they can.
LordFluffy t1_iu5rqff wrote
> Again, the people to whom it matters most, the mass-murdering fuckheads, nearly always choose a gun when they can.
Mass murder is horrific. It is also the least of the violence in the US.
I think if you put the effort in to helping victims of abuse relocate and become financially independant, just for example, you'd save far more lives than if you melted all the guns in the US to scrap, much less any actually feasible gun control measure.
Head-Ad4690 t1_iu5rwtq wrote
Nice deflection.
LordFluffy t1_iu5sia1 wrote
No, kind of my whole damn point.
The goal is to save lives, yes? On this we can agree, I hope.
The effort to implement restrictive gun control I think has cost the left more political capitol than it's been worth. I think it's helped the right and also given some very terrible people a symbol (along with the mythologizing of certain weapons).
Furthermore, I didn't pick domestic abuse haphazardly. There's a big correlation between abuse and mass murder. Even in the narrow window of violence we're talking about, I think you'd see better results trying to undercut motive rather than restrict means.
I'm not deflecting. I'm just not putting on blinders to the larger issues at hand.
Head-Ad4690 t1_iu5t15b wrote
If that was your whole damned point then you would have led with that. Instead, you talked about individual instances of knife and vehicle violence as if that somehow proved something.
Here are two statements I hope we can both agree on although I won’t be surprised if you find some way to argue:
- Guns are, in general, a far superior tool of mass murder than knives or other easily accessible weapons.
- Mass murder is not the top priority if your goal is to save lives by whatever means you can.
LordFluffy t1_iu5td9y wrote
> Instead, you talked about individual instances of knife and vehicle violence as if that somehow proved something.
Because I was responding to particular statements you made.
> Here are two statements I hope we can both agree on although I won’t be surprised if you find some way to argue
I think any objection I'd have would be nitpicking.
Draker-X t1_iu5liah wrote
>Because surely no one would ever commit violence with something else.
Why is there at least one shooting in the U.S. every day where multiple people are injured or killed, but not constant mass stabbings, mass SUV killings, mass bombings, mass chokings, etc?
Not isolated incidents you have to go back to 2016 to remember. Every day.
LordFluffy t1_iu5nde4 wrote
> Why is there at least one shooting in the U.S. every day where multiple people are injured or killed, but not constant mass stabbings, mass SUV killings, mass bombings, mass chokings, etc?
People choose the most effective means at their disposal. My point is not that other means are always as effective as firearms. My point is that absent firearms, people are still going to kill each other. The guns didn't cause the incident and absent them such incidents would still occur.
Which is one factor in a much larger puzzle.
> Not isolated incidents you have to go back to 2016 to remember. Every day.
Most of those "every day" incidents have no fatalities. I'm not saying that makes them okay or better, but it does deserve attention.
The reason is those are not murders, they're aggravated assault. When you look at the number of aggravated assaults in the US by weapon, you find that firearms are involved in a minority of them. They are, yes, involved in a majority of homicides.
There are lots of homicides you never hear about because they don't involve guns and aren't particularly newsworthy. In fact, 1/3 of the homicides in the US are committed with something other than a firearm. (EDIT: I went back and checked the CDC's numbers and my statement was incorrect. It's closer to 1/4, not 1/3)
That's still a hell of a lot of homicides, objectively and in comparison to other countries.
Which is, again, to say that it's a more complicated problem than any one means.
Draker-X t1_iu5pg16 wrote
>People choose the most effective means at their disposal.
So, if we took away more efficient means of violence from people (semi-auto long guns) and forced them to use less efficient means (handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, pipe bombs, knives, autos, their bare hands), there would still be a high number of aggravated assaults (which is bad) but fewer homicides (which is good).
Some people that would have died would instead be injured, and I'm guessing some that would have been injured wouldn't be injured at all.
This all sounds like a win-win-win to me.
> Which is, again, to say that it's a more complicated problem than any one means.
Yes, but a sizable number of people want to look at ANYTHING but guns.
I want to look at things other than guns (the state of mental healthcare in the U.S. is appalling, and needs to be reformed and strengthened ASAP), but the ubiquity and ease of acquisition of guns and ammo is a big part of the problem and need to be addressed.
LordFluffy t1_iu5qb1t wrote
> (semi-auto long guns)
You do know that most homicides by gun, including mass murders, are committed with handguns, right?
> ...there would still be a high number of aggravated assaults (which is bad) but fewer homicides (which is good).
Maybe. See, guns are not just one sided. There are around 100k defensive gun uses in the US. Some of those likely are inconsequential, some may be a life saved, and some may be many lives saved. Disarmament is likely to affect the law abiding more than the felonious, so it will likely impact defensive use as much if not more than illicit misuse.
Then it becomes a bet. I've never thought it was a very good one.
Draker-X t1_iu5ufav wrote
> You do know that most homicides by gun, including mass murders, are committed with handguns, right?
> Since 1985 there has been a known total 54 mass shootings involving rifles, mostly semi-automatics. This figure is underreported though, as it excludes the multiple semi-automatic (and fully automatic) rifles used in the 2017 Las Vegas Strip massacre – the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, killing 58 and wounding 546. In fact, semi-automatic rifles were featured in four of the five deadliest mass shootings, being used in the Orlando nightclub massacre, Sandy Hook Elementary massacre and Texas First Baptist Church massacre.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/
How about we just focus on the low-hanging fruit and try to lessen the effects?
> There are around 100k defensive gun uses in the US.
Are there numbers on how many of those are semi-auto long guns vs. pistols and shotguns? I'd like to know how many people use those types of weapons for "defensive purposes".
> Disarmament is likely to affect the law abiding more than the felonious
Good thing I don't want to "disarm" anyone, just outlaw one particular style of weapon and see what happens.
LordFluffy t1_iu5xrzt wrote
> How about we just focus on the low-hanging fruit and try to lessen the effects?
Going for the "low hanging fruit" got us the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs.
Look up the Virginia Tech shooting.
> Are there numbers on how many of those are semi-auto long guns vs. pistols and shotguns?
Not of which I'm aware, though I imagine that handguns are still number one.
> Good thing I don't want to "disarm" anyone, just outlaw one particular style of weapon and see what happens.
Okay, so how do you intend to do that?
This isn't 1994. The proposed AWB's I've seen are the same "by feature" drivel that was passed then to dubious results. Between the millions in circulation, the advent of 3d printing, and the existence of things like 80% lowers, not to mention the extreme politicization and divide on the issue, I don't think you're going to see many benefits.
And again, even if you do ban scary black rifles (though assault weapons were by the 1994 definition rifles, pistols, and shotguns with certain features) then people simply turn to other firearms or other weapons (remember the earlier statement about handguns?).
Addressing the fewer than 400 homicides by rifle a year seems a terrible way to address the overall problem of violence or even the the problem of mass murder.
EDIT: And such bans would, in fact, disarm more people than you realize if it includes any sort of mandatory buyback/confiscation.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments