this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
66 points (98.5% liked)

News

23274 readers
3302 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 20 points 4 months ago (4 children)

That's only one of the two mass shootings today.

But there were 7 yesterday, and 7 the day before.

AMERICA -- THAT'S SIXTEEN SHOOTINGS IN 3 DAYS, killing 14 and wounding 78 others. THREE DAYS.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The issue is that a lot of the “mass shootings” are not terror incidents like the school shootings we’ve all heard about.

Take the Philly one, for instance. It was covered in my local media and I still don’t quite get what happened. It sounded like a fight miles away ended up in a gunfight in South Philly.

The type of gun violence that really reverberates in the USA is the school shooting type of incident. It’s a lone gunman who has no relation to the victims.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Why does the type of gun violence matter? Why does it matter whether or not they know the victims?

I don't understand the relevance to the gun control discussion.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It matters for media coverage because gang wars are different than “innocent little granny shot by lone wolf”

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

But isn't the source of the problem the same for both? Or do you mean that people consuming the news just don't sympathize with murders when it's a gang war?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand this because it gets brought up a lot when mass shootings happen and I guess to me, murder is murder.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Right, it just doesn’t get media coverage because we don’t sympathize in those cases. And it doesn’t fit into people’s mental concept of “mass shooting” as a result. Someone elsewhere in these comments already tried to say this doesn’t count as a mass shooting

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Got it. Thanks.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The source of the problem is crime (often due to poverty/gang culture) and mental health issues. If the source of the problem was gun owners there would be far more deaths. Millions of people own guns without ever harming anyone. Fixing healthcare so it's accessible to people who need it, expanding social services, and fixing income inequality is the real solution.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Then it's weird that pretty much all the countries with high homicide rates, the U.S. included, tend to have legal guns and the ones with low homicide rates tend not to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

You would think there would be some sort of link.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There are 1.2 guns for every person in the united states and the homicide rate is 6.383 for every 100,000 people. It doesn't break out homicides by guns vs. other methods but even if every homicide was using a gun that isn't much of a correlation between gun ownership and murdering people. There are always other factors. If just guns made people commit homicide there would be bodies piled in the streets.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

That is not in any way a response to my point.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately the people opposed to gun control are also typically opposed to all those things you mentioned.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but that doesn't mean you should fight them for gun control instead of fighting them for the other things. You can instead advocate for those other things. Those other things are also easier tbh because they don't require an amendment to the constitution to happen.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Or we can fight for both since no one needs the kind of hardware that's out there right now.

Screw amendments, we can just argue that the second is referring to a person's upper limbs. Besides, with the supreme court saying the president is above the law and states requiring the 10 commandments in schools, it's pretty clear the Constitution doesn't mean shit anyway.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It’s also associated with domestic violence. Yes that’s a crime but it’s not the crime people are thinking of. And unfortunately that one is going to be the tricky one to resolve

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

I think that would fall under expanding social services, either to give the abusee options to remove themselves from the situation or get the abuser into counseling early on before it gets more serious or a combination of the two. Personally I think a lot of violent assholes could be sorted out if everyone had to take counseling in high school and learn methods of dealing with their shit.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Because Pandoras box is opened and there is no closing it. Criminals will get access to firearms even if they've all been banned. Gun control logic is like giving a bandaid to someone with cancer.

We need to fix the why, not the how of our violence issue.

We need to focus on social programs, single payer healthcare, our education system, prison and police reform, and ending the war on drugs. Just these things alone would drop our violence by 100xs what another useless gun control bill would do.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

None of those things have anything to do with the type of violence or whether or not they know the victims.

So that really doesn't explain anything.

This was not about whether or not a gun control discussion is worth having. This is about the relevance of the type of gun violence and whether or not the murderer and the victim new each other. What difference does it make?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

So what's your question then? Most gun violence is not random. Hell most violence is not random. That's what the public perceives though. Which causes the gun control issue to be heavily viewed as something its not. Hence the incessant need to act like another AWB would do anything to curb the violence. When in reality it would do absolutely jack shit, because the majority of gun deaths are via handguns.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I asked my question. You aren't answering it.

I will repeat it:

Why does the type of gun violence matter? Why does it matter whether or not they know the victims?

I don’t understand the relevance to the gun control discussion.

You have made your opinion that there should be absolutely no discussion of gun control known many times, so maybe you weren't the person I wanted an answer from. Especially when you weren't the one I asked.

Take your agenda elsewhere.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I did answer your question. It matters because it is used as a agenda to make the public feel like we have random mass shootings daily. It %100 matters.

This is why the GVA is bunk crap, because it twists the truth.

I've never said that there should be no discussion of gun control. I just point out how little logic is behind the gun control that's proposed, because it's not based in reality.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No. No you didn't. I also didn't ask you and I don't want your opinion because I know what your opinion is already.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I mean I did answer your question, you where just hoping for someone else to give you a different answer.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Correct, that's why I asked them and not you.

And they answered it, unlike your claim to have answered it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They literally said the same thing I did.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

They didn't, but go ahead and claim that.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

This is a civil comment pointing out that squid has mod on several instances and likes to goad people into arguments and then ban them. Sorry for being uncivilized before <3

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Jeffw:

https://lemmy.world/comment/11037065

It matters for media coverage because gang wars are different than “innocent little granny shot by lone wolf”

Me:

It matters because it is used as a agenda to make the public feel like we have random mass shootings daily. It %100 matters.

https://lemmy.world/comment/11038717

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

I have no idea why you think those two are the same answers. However, the bigger issue was your attempting to shut down conversation before it started with your initial reply to my question:

Because Pandoras box is opened and there is no closing it. Criminals will get access to firearms even if they’ve all been banned. Gun control logic is like giving a bandaid to someone with cancer.

We need to fix the why, not the how of our violence issue.

We need to focus on social programs, single payer healthcare, our education system, prison and police reform, and ending the war on drugs. Just these things alone would drop our violence by 100xs what another useless gun control bill would do.

That was a non-answer in response to my question:

Why does the type of gun violence matter? Why does it matter whether or not they know the victims?

I don’t understand the relevance to the gun control discussion.

What "we need to do" had nothing to do with what I asked, but it did attempt to shut down a conversation no one was having before it started.

I'm sure you'll have some sort of lame excuse for why what you said really did somehow answer that question that didn't ask about what we need to do or why something happened.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Because it’s a lot easier to tell yourself it’s ok when it’s related to crime, domestic violence, or some other form of intentionally targeted killing. That doesn’t make it ok, but people tell themselves they and their loved ones are safe.

All it does is turns bad decisions and bad situations into tragedies. I have gun owners I like and respect, but I keep finding the people most invested in their guns are the people I trust least to have them.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

US has 43.1 gun deaths per 1m with some states having more than 100. Ukraine has 131 gun deaths per 1m during active war. Yeah...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

It's always too soon to talk about guns after a mass shooting and there's always mass shootings. It works out well for the NRA.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

But that's because the good guys don't have enough guns just yet!