Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AsparagusFirm7764 t1_iwzmwqa wrote

As a non American, it just baffles me that it's almost 2023, and Americans just can't figure out why gun violence is so high in their country.

27

CookieMasochist OP t1_iwzobr0 wrote

Chicago's 25th ward, home to the Alderman in the story, is only about a 30 minute drive from the Indiana State border. While Chicago and Illinois has relatively sane gun laws, Indiana has extremely lax laws and there's not really anything Chicago/Illinois residents can do about that. Add in a history of corruption, segregationist urban planning, a decline in the city's manufacturing base, and 2 drug epidemics in a generation and you have a perfect recipe for violence.

EDIT: I did not know you couldn't legally purchase guns across state lines.

8

speckyradge t1_ix00q4z wrote

That's somewhat of a fallacy. Chicagoans buy guns from outside of Chicago because.... there are no gun stores in Chicago. Secondly, an Illinois resident cannot legally go into Indiana, buy a handgun from a store and drive home with it. That's a federal law. So for Indiana guns to wind up in criminal hands, multiple laws have to be broken by multiple people. Straw purchasing, private party sales across state lines or interstate weapons trafficking.

8

Kind_Bullfrog_4073 t1_ix0z1tn wrote

You also can't legally murder people with guns, but that doesn't stop it from happening.

11

speckyradge t1_ix0zvw3 wrote

Absolutely true, same as the point I'm making. Making Indiana gun laws the same as Illinois won't change anything, Federal laws are already being broken to get guns to Chicago from Indiana.

−1

ProfCharlesBrainman t1_ix0tvsj wrote

They can if they go to a gun show, since Indiana police only started cracking down on them last year.

1

AsparagusFirm7764 t1_iwzprej wrote

The thing is gun laws can't be limited to a local area. That's the really unfortunate part, where parts of the country WANT to do the right thing, but are inhibited from doing it because the rest of the country doesn't wanna.

2

Okie_Chimpo t1_ix3wl3i wrote

The problem with your "lax gun laws" theory is that your friends and neighbors who own guns aren't the problem. Limiting access to firearms only works with honest people, and they aren't the ones committing the crime. This is why gun control efforts always fail, because you are only preventing good people from protecting themselves, and disarming honest citizens won't make the dishonest ones less dangerous.

If you want to reduce gun crime and violence, then you need to be working towards correcting poverty, addressing gang violence, improving mental health care and providing a real economic option for kids growing up now to support themselves.

Stripping the rights of normal folks won't do that. Never has, never will.

2

dbell t1_ix6v6ok wrote

Legal guns are not the problem.

1

CookieMasochist OP t1_ix6xgt5 wrote

Yeah that's been made abundantly clear to me by several commenters. That said, it is still significantly easier to get a gun in the US, legally or illegally, than it is in most other advanced economies. Nonetheless I've made note of my misunderstanding in an edit to my original comment. Mea culpa.

1

Reeetman1 t1_iwzw6g6 wrote

we know exactly why. the proble is people would rather blame the tools of violence than even discuss the actual issues, like poverty, racism, wage slavery, etc.

its not because we have more guns than other countries. its because we DONT have any of the civilized features, like healthcare, education, quality of life....

3

AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix05afs wrote

this is true. For being a country that claims to be as patriotic as America does, it's probably one of the least patriotic countries in the world. There's very little support for the country, and a LOT of support for individuality. And when you encourage the individual instead of the population you run into a lot of problems.

4

Playful_Melody t1_ix4o6i2 wrote

Would it relate to the country’s cultural belief in individualism? For example, in more collectivistic counties like Japan, there is actually very little looting after natural disasters, whereas it seems very high in countries like the states. To me it feels like the desire of self is excessive to the point of selfishness rather than self-reliance

1

AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix67hvn wrote

Oh entirely. It's not a country of people wanting to work together to be better, it's a country of people that care about themselves only, and not at all interested in sharing.

1

Reeetman1 t1_ix09sun wrote

It's not even the individual. Well 7nless that individual has millions of dollars in the bank.
We support business and exploitation of the workers for the gain of the wealthy.
We are an oppressive feudal society. We would be an oppressive feudal society even without guns.

−2

AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix0cpd7 wrote

By individual, I mean individual entity within the country; as opposed to supporting what's best for everyone, the mentality is focused on what I as an individual want. Granted that mentality doesn't always work out well for people that don't have a voice.

America could really benefit from socialism.

2

Reeetman1 t1_ix0etds wrote

I knew what you meant. I disagree with your details but fully agree with your final conclusion.

2

HarryCaulrecordedyou t1_ix0pi4b wrote

Nothing to do with lax Indiana gun laws though.

By the way one can blame the tool AND the other things you mention.

3

Reeetman1 t1_ix0s3ua wrote

The problem is violence, ALL OF IT. You are making a bad faith argument about guns. It's.moot.
Oppressive regimes all throughout history have tried to ban weapons from the oppressed. Where are they now?
Your entire argument is a logical fallacy. You are cherry picking one specific violent act, giving it a name, and pretending banning that one thing will fix all of societies problems. It's exactly what Hitler did to the Jews.

We don't need to ban the item, we need to stop the violent tendencies. A violent society without weapons doesn't suddenly become peaceful, it just finds new weapons.

−2

HarryCaulrecordedyou t1_ix0uj9c wrote

Ask people in Europe today if they are scared of what you say. They'll laugh at you as if you're a lunatic, which you could quite possibly be.

If you think your pistol is gonna stop an entity with nuclear weapons, you're insane.

Where did I say banning guns will solve all of societies ills? Oh that's right I didn't. Get help.

3

Reeetman1 t1_ix1362c wrote

> If you think your pistol is gonna stop an entity with nuclear weapons, you're insane.

Lololololololo.
That's the dumbest argument ever.

You do know that Europe didn't stop anything with their gun ban, right? Just today someone was arrested with a PIPE BOMB and a gun. They didn't have any mass shooting events before they banned guns. You kids love.pointing to Europe as if it proves anything. In fact, banning guns had ZERO (0) effect on UKs violent crime and murder rates. They were falling before the ban and they continue to fall at the same rate today. It's also the same rate that violent crime is falling in the US.

−1

HarryCaulrecordedyou t1_ix2dway wrote

How many mass shootings does the us have per year compared to Europe? Stop embarrassing yourself you dumb piece of shit.

1

[deleted] t1_ix38m3e wrote

[removed]

1

AutoModerator t1_ix38m6s wrote

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

2

the_catshark t1_ix0o7xh wrote

I mean, its really both. The issues mentioned are why people may end up in a cycle of crime and violence. But gun violence increases the easier guns are to acquire. If guns are not plentiful and accessible, gun violence goes down.

Successful violent crime also goes down, not to mention gun mistakes like unintentional discharges and suicide go down when guns are not accessible.

2

freddy_guy t1_ix2e6fw wrote

Sorry, but the people who most strongly oppose guns are also the people who want to do something about poverty, racism, etc. It's the right wing who wants to do nothing about any of it.

And you have forgotten to mention that the culture itself is partly to blame. America fetishizes guns in a way that is really cringey to non-Americans. It's really gross, from an outsiders' point of view. You also need to fix that.

1

[deleted] t1_ix38ev2 wrote

[removed]

1

AutoModerator t1_ix38eyv wrote

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

[deleted] t1_ix1qe7o wrote

[deleted]

1

blueistheonly1 t1_ix2af0o wrote

To what demographic group and culture are you referring, and do you have a source for that information other than yourself?

4

sprint6864 t1_iwzq9un wrote

Most Americans want gun control and are uncomfortable with the ease of accessibility and the worship they get

0

Infernalism t1_iwznphy wrote

They would rather ignore the reality than deal with the reality.

−1

brian_sahn t1_iwzoqcd wrote

Not really, we know what the problem is. But if we try to have a discussion about it one side will say “shall not infringe” and that will end the discussion.

−4

AsparagusFirm7764 t1_iwzp9wo wrote

Host an education session on the subject of "what is an amendment?" first... Give them the benefit of the doubt that they can learn what that is.

0

AbsentThatDay t1_iwzz8l8 wrote

Only one in five people want the 2nd amendment to be repealed in the U.S., and that is what it would take to make guns illegal. It's not going to change. Disarming a population against their wishes would be tyranny.

−5

AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix04xb2 wrote

Yeah but the awkward part about these polls is that people will eat dog shit if their political party told them to. There's been countless times (Especially in recent times like with Trump) where people argued for something that they believed their political leader of choice said, but then found out afterwards it was their opposition that said.

I can imagine one in five Americans would vote that they're in favor of taxes too... But in the end, it's needed. Like it or not. Just like keeping Americans safe.

​

But I do agree it would cause a tyranny. And as unfortunate as it is, some people will just have to die for their beliefs. It's a common thing in American history, and all the power to them... but you can't have a progressive country with those radical beliefs running rampant within it.

2

AnotherScoutTrooper t1_ix0fhjx wrote

> And as unfortunate as it is, some people will just have to die for their beliefs. It's a common thing in American history, and all the power to them... but you can't have a progressive country with those radical beliefs running rampant within it.

Imagine if someone said this about abortion, they’d be looked at as a fucking lunatic. People like you are the best argument for the 2nd Amendment: protecting yourself against people who want others to “just die for their beliefs.”

1

AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix0k9il wrote

Yeah... Imagine fighting for the right to abort a fetus that isn't welcome in the world, only for it to grow up and get killed by someone who thought their right to end lives is more important than someone's right to abort a life and prevent a life of suffering. What fucking lunatics.

1

AnotherScoutTrooper t1_ix0mpad wrote

What? I was literally calling pro-lifers lunatics. And since when did you have the “right” to kill someone with a gun? That’s called murder, and arguing self-defense requires months of court dates, lots of evidence, and lots of money, even if it’s legal.

2

AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix0n8pd wrote

Not going down this long road with you. Seen it too many times, and there's never been any progress made.

1

AbsentThatDay t1_ix0be2i wrote

There's nothing radical in the U.S. about owning guns, it's completely normal. It's been the status quo since it's inception. The idea that you can't have a progressive country because of the second amendment is flawed thinking.

−2

AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix0cwx5 wrote

Seems to be working well for the rest of civilized countries.

6

AbsentThatDay t1_ix0eeo6 wrote

Like China? Guns are forbidden there, the state has total control. It's a dystopian nightmare.

−4

AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix0l0e0 wrote

Is that the only country you know of?

8

AbsentThatDay t1_ix0qvgo wrote

It's literally 17% of the population of the whole world, seems like it might be relevant.

3

AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix0xc95 wrote

It's not. You're going from one extreme to another trying to justify your country's poor decisions.

8

AbsentThatDay t1_ix12uys wrote

Nothing I have said has been extreme. I'm a lifelong Democrat in the most liberal state in the nation, I just happen to believe along with 80 percent of the nation that we should be an armed society.

−1

AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix15qcc wrote

You entirely did. You went from either everyone is armed to the teeth or you're on constant overwatch and dictated how to live your life. You completely bypassed everything in between.

6

AbsentThatDay t1_ix191rq wrote

So your first example, where everyone is armed to the teeth, is that how you view the U.S. right now? Are we really extreme, I mean the common man in the U.S., you view that as some extreme armed to the teeth existence? I think your impression of bog-standard Americans is out of whack.

That being said I can understand how another culture would seem extreme to some people who haven't immersed themself in it. I get that a lot of people suffer because of gun violence. I still think it's worth it. A lot of diabetics die from eating too much sugar, we don't ban cupcakes.

−2

AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix1dqv9 wrote

Were cupcakes designed to kill people?

It's unfortunate but the entire American culture is built on violence. Without it the country is lost, has no home. So I get why you think it's necessary. It's just unfortunate that America will always be that country hitting itself going "this hurts! If only there was a way to stop doing it!"

5

AbsentThatDay t1_ix1fu73 wrote

Bro we're standing tall, no offense, but is there a country in the world that has more influence? I'm trying not to be nationalistic here, but it's not too bad to be in the U.S. right now.

−1

AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix1j5bw wrote

Another thing that you don't know anything else, so of course you think that.

5

AbsentThatDay t1_ix1ooh4 wrote

I get that you're not in favor of the U.S., it's fine, we have lots of detractors. But I will goddamn guarantee that your life 100% depends on the U.S. enforcing free trade in the world.

1

AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix1p402 wrote

Tell me you have an ego problem without telling me you have an ego problem....

5

AbsentThatDay t1_ix1vbr8 wrote

You'd mentioned earlier you weren't from the U.S., do you mind me asking what country you are from? It's ok if you don't want to say.

1

ProfCharlesBrainman t1_ix2p2sn wrote

Free trade?

Kid, you are on delusional right-wing robot.

1

AbsentThatDay t1_ix3k2qc wrote

I normally would just ignore you, but today I'm going to be generous and educate you. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/sea-power-us-navy-and-foreign-policy Try not to be so confidently incorrect.

0

ProfCharlesBrainman t1_ix3l7eb wrote

So an article from a think tank that is so obviously biased I couldn’t get past the intro?

That article is so much propaganda that it’s first citation is the US Joint Forces Command.

It’s literally using it’s subject as a source.

Did you even read that or did you just do a Google search and post the first result?

0

AbsentThatDay t1_ix3mho8 wrote

Are you arguing that the U.S. Navy doesn't enable worldwide trade? Rather than attack my sources, just say it plainly whether you believe it to be the case or not. No wiggle room.

0

ProfCharlesBrainman t1_ix3o7bj wrote

I’m arguing that the entire premise is pro-military propaganda.

1

AbsentThatDay t1_ix3q20x wrote

My guy, you jumped into a rational conversation and you're out of your depth. You're arguing against points I make that literally are common knowledge. It makes the discussion uninteresting.

0

ProfCharlesBrainman t1_ix3qa4g wrote

You made points?

Where?

All I saw was a link you didn’t read before copy and pasting and you whining that I wasn’t here to entertain you.

0

ProfCharlesBrainman t1_ix0u68e wrote

If we’re playing that game, doesn’t that mean Afghanistan should be the safest country in the world since you can carry a full auto AK wherever you want?

5

GetlostMaps t1_ix0fgg6 wrote

2A did not defend personal ownership until your lifetime. It was about the militia until then. You just need judges in the supreme Court who aren't corrupt, and presto - no.need to change 2A.

0