I was at the UCSB shooting in 2014. I remember the surreal sound of gunshots. They sounded like nothing I would expect. So many lives and families were destroyed that day. The years later, a bar in my community was shot up, destroying even more lives.
I'm sad how often these occurrences are and that we've gone blind to them.
I initially clicked the link to see if the suspect used a "bump" stock, or AR-15, only to slowly realize, Florence KY is right outside of Covington, just south of Cincinnati, and I have a bunch of family there.
Gun rights and regulations, the arguments and drama and bullshit, all pale in comparison to the loss of a loved one.
Guns don't only do one thing. Sure, they kill people. But they also destroy families. They make kids grow up without fathers, make parents bury their children.
I hope my loved ones are safe. I wish I didn't have to worry about my family and I being shot for nothing everyday.
mass shooting, as defined by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), an event in which one or more individuals are “actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area. Implicit in this definition is the shooter’s use of a firearm.” The FBI has not set a minimum number of casualties to qualify an event as a mass shooting, but U.S. statute (the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012) defines a “mass killing” as “3 or more killings in a single incident.” For the purposes of this article, both sets of criteria will be applied to the term mass shooting, with the distinction that the shooter or shooters are not included in any fatality statistics.
Police responded to a call just before 3am on Saturday morning for an active shooting situation at a home in Florence, Kentucky.
You're right it seems. They should've said "mass killing"
Semantics matter greatly. The general public hears mass shooting and thinks, random act of violence. They don't hear "3am crack house was shot up by rival gang".
It's done purposefully, mostly just because scaring you into clicking by making you think "this could have been me" gets them more clicks and therefore more ad revenue and perpetuates the idea that active shooter incidents as most people perceive them are way more common than they are, which ups the fear and the clicks and ends up being a really fucked up manipulative cycle, basically the news is abusing us. Harder to scare you if they tell it in a less sensationalist manner, because you won't connect to those people as deeply or in the same way unless you also happen to hang out in crack houses at 3am and most people do not do that.
There are some groups that perpetuate the same for political reasons as well, like Everytown, MDA, and the Brady campaign, but mostly it's just plain ol' "if it bleeds it leads give us attention/money."
My dude, I'm putting together slides for the funeral. I really don't care what you believe, I just implore you to not speculate and make stuff up based on the time that the shooting happened. You probably don't know what it's like to wake up to this news, and I hope you never do.
Edit: Here is more information for you. The killer was recently broken up with and saw his gf at the party with other guys.
Any gun nut feel like arguing for insanity that are US gun laws?
All you need to do is ignore science and reality and every other country outsider of the US and be convinced that undiagnosed schizophrenics being able to buy a shedload of semi-automatic weapons is necessary for democracy.
All I need to do is remind you that there's not a single piece of study that supports any of the arguments of the gun nutters.
(Also, just because it seems to matter to these nuts, I started shooting at 12 and have handled everything from old officer's pistols to shotguns to modern assault rifles, machine guns, grenades, mines, and even AA guns. Shooting is fun, yeah, but having fun isn't more important than making sure children don't have to live under the constant threat of their fellow pupils pulling out a semi-auto with a bump-stock.)
Edit after three days: yeah, not a Single scientific study of any sort from the gun nuts, but the usual "teenagers aren't kids and we don't actually have any issues and I'm not reading some study, muh rights, just a gang problem" etc etc etc etc
You're being emotional, and that's how shit laws get created. Your logic follows the same crap that anti-abortion groups use, it's all based on emotions.
And you having "shot guns" doesn't make you an expert on guns.
More kids die from drowning than from being killed at school by a massive order of magnitude. Why aren't we closing pools and hot tubs? Or you don't want to because them dying isn't really the issue to you. It's what was used to have them die isn't it?
Cry all you want big boy, the science is on the side of us non-brainwashed, rational people who understand the need for actual gun regulation in a civilised country.
Too bad the US hardly qualifies to that group any more. Third world level literacy rates, so many homeless that human shit is an actual issue in supposedly civilised cities, and firearms as the leading cause of death for children.
There's a literal mountai in the of evidence showing that all you need to do to start facing this problem is reasonable nation-wide gun regulation. Something everyone knows works and something that you won't find science against, because gun regulation being the answer is as clear to most people as is the fact that the Earth is round, not Flat.
But you will find Flat Earther crazies who won't believe in the science even when their own science proves that they are indeed wrong.
You're emotional. You get so angry when you're reminded that you go against science because you don't have the balls to actually use your own brain.
And you having "shot guns" doesn't make you an expert on guns
Oh yeah no, it doesn't bear any rationale to this argument. It's just there because gun nuts always default to the "you're just afraid of my pew-pew sticks, that's why you support gun regulation". Nah. I love guns, they're fun. But you know what I care more about than loud bangs? That children don't have to live in fear of some incel fucktards charging into their school with a pimped out AR15 with a bumpstock.
There's literally not a single peer reviewed study that concludes that less gun control is better, for anything.
But I'm sure the lack of science won't stop you, just like it doesn't stop Flat Earthers.
You're really just here to prove my point about the willfull ignorance of nuts like you. So... thanks, I guess?
Cry all you want big boy, the science is on the side of us non-brainwashed, rational people who understand the need for actual gun regulation in a civilised country.
I'm not the one crying, the 2nd isn't going anywhere, and neither are my firearms. More and more people on the left are arming themselves, and the gun control types are becoming a smaller and smaller group. The support you think you have is basically on echo chambers like reddit and here.
First, I'm all for social programs, ending the war on drugs, mental health, single payer healthcare and increasing our funding to education.
Second, firearms is not the leading cause of death for children. It was during covid because of how many people weren't driving and how depressed people got from being stuck inside and not being able to socialize.
There's a literal mountai in the of evidence showing that all you need to do to start facing this problem is reasonable nation-wide gun regulation. Something everyone knows works and something that you won't find science against, because gun regulation being the answer is as clear to most people as is the fact that the Earth is round, not Flat.
Tell that to mexico or Brazil, you also forget that all the places you love to claim have lower gun violence are places with social support for their citizens.
But you will find Flat Earther crazies who won't believe in the science even when their own science proves that they are indeed wrong.
Not even in the same ballpark.
You're emotional. You get so angry when you're reminded that you go against science because you don't have the balls to actually use your own brain.
Oh yeah no, it doesn't bear any rationale to this argument. It's just there because gun nuts always default to the "you're just afraid of my pew-pew sticks, that's why you support gun regulation". Nah. I love guns, they're fun. But you know what I care more about than loud bangs? That children don't have to live in fear of some incel fucktards charging into their school with a pimped out AR15 with a bumpstock.
The problem here is, you don't seem to care that kids die, just how they die. Most murders happen with handguns. In fact, murders with ar15s are so rare they're just included into all rifle deaths, because they're statistically pointless.
There's literally not a single peer reviewed study that concludes that less gun control is better, for anything.
That's not how the second amendment works, it's not there to reduce our violence. It's there to stop a tyrannical gov....one of which seems to be coming more and more everyday. Do you just ignore the shit that's coming out of trump and his ilks mouth?
But I'm sure the lack of science won't stop you, just like it doesn't stop Flat Earthers.
Statistics are what I look at. Which is why you thinking another bumpstock or AWB would do anything is hilarious.
You're really just here to prove my point about the willfull ignorance of nuts like you. So... thanks, I guess?
Second, firearms is not the leading cause of death for children. It was during covid because of how many people weren't driving and how depressed people got from being stuck inside and not being able to socialize.
Look up the definition of children used here. Also look at suicide and homicides as part of that larger number. There's a lot of context that points to the fact that the root cause (obviously) isn't the tool, but the system the tools exist in.
People like them reek of the sheltered-liberal-20-year-old mindset of "the system is almost perfect, is we just make a couple of tweaks here and there it'll be fine." As if firearm restrictions alone will address socioeconomic ossification, the lack of meaningful state protection of vulnerable populations, deep resentment of minorities in homogenous, conservative areas, etc. Whining about how dumb people who hate guns less than they do are lets them get away with not doing the difficult work of addressing deep-rooted structural injustices. Fucking weak.
No, no it doesn't. Everywhere that has gun control also has social safety nets... everywhere they have gun control and no safety nets, its bad. Brazil and Mexico.... please explain those two countries which have very high firearm homicides but the gun laws there basically ban civilians from owning firearms.
My facts are from actual facts. As I asked before, please tell me why Brazil and Mexico has worse gun crime than the USA, but has basically banned civilian ownership?
Your "science" isn't anything more than emotional bullshit.
What you're doing is crying a lot, denying the actual studies which have been done in, among other countries, Brazil.
You've never read a single one, because people like you never do. Instead you think your making aa good case by calling Harvard and Oxford studies "emotional bullshit" while thinking the garbage you pull out of your arse are "facts, my facts are real facts".
You seriously think you're gonna "debunk" large peer reviewed studies by the world's most esteemed universities by going "b-b-but w-what about B-Brazil..?!" (It's called whataboutism, a rather childish propaganda tactic.)
Since the studies are too hard for you to read:
Within the US, gun violence varies widely. Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates range from a high of 14.4 per 100,000 in Washington, DC, to a low of 1.1 per 100,000 in New Hampshire. Washington, DC’s rate is similar to those of Brazil and Jamaica, which rank ninth and tenth globally. New Hampshire’s rate is similar to that of Chile. Even though New Hampshire has the lowest rates of age-adjusted firearm homicides in the US, its rate is still three times greater than the highest rate in Europe – Cyprus, with 0.36 deaths per 100,000.
You're never going to admit you're wrong, no matter how bad it gets in your shithole of a country. Why is that? Wouldn't it be better to admit how fucked up it is, to start fixing it? Or do you just like living in an unsafe shithole?
What you're doing is crying a lot, denying the actual studies which have been done in, among other countries, Brazil.
Where do you seem me crying? I'm not the one crying about guns, and screaming "think of the children"...you anti-2a groups are literally emotionally driven and actually do cry a lot about gun rights.
You've never read a single one, because people like you never do. Instead you think your making aa good case by calling Harvard and Oxford studies "emotional bullshit" while thinking the garbage you pull out of your arse are "facts, my facts are real facts".
I've read all of these studies, they're all designed to show that guns magically make people more violent and we should ban them completely. This isn't news. The facts I use are from statistics from the FBI, statistics don't lie.
You seriously think you're gonna "debunk" large peer reviewed studies by the world's most esteemed universities by going "b-b-but w-what about B-Brazil..?!" (It's called whataboutism, a rather childish propaganda tactic.)
These studies aren't actual studies, they're collections of data that are correlationed to make gun ownership look bad. And I'm not the one that continually brings up other nations that have safety nets and gun control and say "what about this euro nation"...
Since the studies are too hard for you to read:
Within the US, gun violence varies widely. Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates range from a high of 14.4 per 100,000 in Washington, DC, to a low of 1.1 per 100,000 in New Hampshire. Washington, DC’s rate is similar to those of Brazil and Jamaica, which rank ninth and tenth globally. New Hampshire’s rate is similar to that of Chile. Even though New Hampshire has the lowest rates of age-adjusted firearm homicides in the US, its rate is still three times greater than the highest rate in Europe – Cyprus, with 0.36 deaths per 100,000.
Cool, thanks for proving my point. Gun laws in Brazil are some of the strictest in the world, yet they have the same firearm homicide rate as DC does... sounds like the laws banning people from owning firearms aren't working.
You're never going to admit you're wrong, no matter how bad it gets in your shithole of a country. Why is that? Wouldn't it be better to admit how fucked up it is, to start fixing it? Or do you just like living in an unsafe shithole?
O... you're not even from the USA...my shithole country is my country, worry about your own.
The facts I use are from statistics from the FBI, statistics don't lie
How would the FBI have any data on nationally implemented gun control? Perhaps by reading studied from Oxford and Harvard.
What you're doing again is crying instead of having any science on your side, even your "FBI facts."
This "argument" is exactly what I meant when I was calling for a gun nut to come show their insanity.
You have a tantrum, deny the science and then say things like "sounds like their policies didn't work", when you still refuse to ACTUALLY READ the study and can't provide anything against it.
Cry cry cry. Zero science. Like always.
Yeah, see I'm from an actual first world country, we have good education, so I understand empathy and how interconnected the global community is. But you don't even care about your own children getting massacred. How utterly disgusting.
How would the FBI have any data on nationally implemented gun control? Perhaps by reading studied from Oxford and Harvard.
ROFL the FBI provides the numbers to the public lol they do not get shit from oxford or Harvard lol fucking hell... I don't even know why I'm arguing with you. You're not even from here lol
What you're doing again is crying instead of having any science on your side, even your "FBI facts."
Lol
This "argument" is exactly what I meant when I was calling for a gun nut to come show their insanity.
Lol
You have a tantrum, deny the science and then say things like "sounds like their policies didn't work", when you still refuse to ACTUALLY READ the study and can't provide anything against it.
Yea ok mr "the fbi gets it's numbers from Oxford and Harvard" ROFL
Cry cry cry. Zero science. Like always.
Lol
Yeah, see I'm from an actual first world country, we have good education, so I understand empathy and how interconnected the global community is. But you don't even care about your own children getting massacred. How utterly disgusting.
O no the emotional bullshit shines. You keep to your side of the pond and I'll keep to mine.
That's what people have to do when they transparently have no actual knowledge of the regulatory landscape they're trying to wade into lol. The same kind of idiot who actually believes it when some politician tells that that a complicated problem has an easy solution.
Like I said, unfortunately for you, we rational people have all the science backing us up. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Show any science backing up anything saying gun control wouldn't help with the violence issue. Or is your argument now "I'm willing to allow children to be massacred on a weekly basis in practice with the excuse to allowing it to continue will perhaps serve a purpose for some fictional scenario I've been fantasising about"?
Because letting children die instead of just using sensible gun regulations like most of the world is a must in case you need to try another jan 6th, huh?
The science supports the effectiveness of rights violations? Neato. I'm sure we could find other 'science backed solutions' if we don't consider rights in the analysis.
There are things we can do to address genuine root causes of different types of firearm-related violence. Banning guns, leaving all those young people in horrible situations because you refuse to analyze the situation and patting yourself on the back sounds about right, though.
Because letting children die instead of just using sensible gun regulations like most of the world is a must in case you need to try another jan 6th, huh?
It's possible to disagree with someone without being a dick. Try it some time.
Let’s take article 3 as an example of a fundamental human right.
Everyone has the right to life (and to live in freedom and safety).
Do you think the US would manage to better protect that right if they accepted the actual science on the issue, rhe one which proves people would be safer and there’d be less gun violence if reasonable regulation was instilled on a national level?
Hope this helps, because people like you need to be helped so we can help ensure better fundamental human rights in the US.
Did your literacy study control for people who are ESL or resident non-english speakers (legal resident or illegal)? Most of those literacy studies are actually kinda racist, just fyi. In your fervor to call Americans stupid you may want to not be racist while you do it.
So they're stupider by your metric, I suppose, and idk what their immigrant population looks like so idk if they have a similar "problem" (really less of a "problem" than you'd think actually, they get by ok) with Spanish-only speaking people.
Btw firearms aren't the leading cause of death for children, that study included "children" who are full grown ass 18-19yo adults involved in gangs and took place in 5 cities known for their gang problems, iirc it was NYC, LA, Baltimore, Chicago, and Philly. It also took place during the pandemic when the real leading cause of death would have been deflated, because it's car crashes, and if they're mostly staying home for zoom classes it cuts down on car crashes. Gang activity waits for no pandemic, people need money and other people need to lose theirs to drug addiction, business was booming during the pandemic for dealers, not to mention we still have an opiate epidemic we're dealing with which also overlapped the pandemic (we've been in it for like 15yr now.)
Btw firearms aren't the leading cause of death for children, that study included "children" who are full grown ass 18-19yo
What's the age at which you can legally be served alcohol — an adult beverage — in the USA? Is it above 19, perchance?
Do you know how fucked you have to be to say that "no it's all bullshit, our children only have gun violence as a leading cause of death if you include the older children, so there's actually nothing to worry about, no problem".
You guys repeat the same pathetic bullshit everytime, and just like I said, you never have any science. At least the Flat Earth people are making up models of their fictional bullshit but you're not even capable of that.
18+ is legally considered an adult, but I do agree that it's bullshit to have the middle ground, I think they should be able to drink. Doesn't change the fact that they're legally considered adults.
Those "teenagers" are selling heroin and crack in organized gangs (crips, bloods, piru, GD, sureños, etc) and shooting each other over it, especially in the cities the study took place in which are known for their gang and drug activity. Guess what, heroin is illegal for "children" to buy as well, but they get it just fine, that is the issue and that is why nobody takes that stupid study seriously.
Anyone familiar with the situation knows that study was bunk and had bad methodology, idk why you continue to shill for it but you do you lol.
At least Flat Earthers try to make their own science. You lazy gun nuts literally repeat three NRA talking points on repeat.
So for you, it's acceptable if children die if they're in their late teens and were involved with anything illegal.
That's quite barbaric viewed from the rest of the world, really. Just like corporal punishment in general. But you also have the whole private prisons industry thing so... Ew.
"Our children are dying to gun massacres we could easily prevent but I like my toys and can't think for myself so I'm gonna keep spreading the things I heard on NRA.tv"
If they decide to enter a gang war, yes, they're in a separate category from some kid just going to math class, because of the inherent dangers in gang warfare. Is this really that hard for you to understand? That choosing to shoot people for taking "your" crackheads comes with inherent dangers, such as being shot at in return by the guys taking your customers? You think calculus and Cartel meth labs are the same? Never seen a mathlete cut off enemy mathlete's heads personally, but maybe you have a video I haven't seen like Funkytown but for debate team?
It's not corporal punishment for a crip to shoot a blood, it's called "murder" which is a "crime." I literally know a fuckton of gang members because of where I grew up, it's a poor choice to enter and the ones that don't quit the life are destined to die "in the line of duty" (read: trying to kill someone illegally because they're wearing the wrong color shirt.) They chose that life.
You gonna go door to door in the heart of the hood and take guns from gang members who already aren't legally allowed to have them? Be my guest lol, there's 600,000,000+ guns be sure to get them all.
Yes yes adult "children" who are legally considered adults are children, and the NRA is the sole reason they're considered adults at 18. Boo hoo. Whatever lol
In the rest of the world, saying "boo-hoo, whatever" to child massacres you could prevent simply by accepting the scientific consensus is viewed as less than civil.
Says the guy who thinks the NRA decides who is legally considered an adult in the US. Idk what to tell you dude 18-19yos are legal adults and the sooner you accept that fact the better it'll be for your own mental health. I hate to do this, but I'm going to have to block you also for your own mental health, you're unable to stop repeating the same talking points, seek help, for real.
See how you need to use the qualifier "legal" there.
Why is that?
Is it because you too understand that teenagers aren't in fact fully grown human beings.
Remind me, what's a word for a human being when they're still growing to the state they are when they're in their adulthood? A cid? Khildren?
"I'm gonna have to block you" <-- ofc you will, all you gun nuts hate listening to facts and reality, because it conflicts with everything you believe in.
You annoyed to be living in a third world country?
There's a really simple solution that would make it so that children are less likely to be slaightered, but you refuse to accept it because you're too lazy to read actual science.
Within the US, gun violence varies widely. Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates range from a high of 14.4 per 100,000 in Washington, DC, to a low of 1.1 per 100,000 in New Hampshire. Washington, DC’s rate is similar to those of Brazil and Jamaica, which rank ninth and tenth globally. New Hampshire’s rate is similar to that of Chile. Even though New Hampshire has the lowest rates of age-adjusted firearm homicides in the US, its rate is still three times greater than the highest rate in Europe – Cyprus, with 0.36 deaths per 100,000.
For what, exactly? Do you know what this tells me. It tells me you're projecting. Which means I've made you very mad indeed by noting how there's literally no science on your side and that you live in a shithole. Guess it's you who needs help. People are offering it, but you're too brainwashed to accept. As your former (and possibly future) president would say: "SAD!"
What a stupid comparison. Guns have one purpose - destruction. You can talk about all the things you can do with guns, but their intended purpose and design is to destroy. The better they destroy shit, the more valuable they are. They're nothing without that.
Pools and hot tubs are not that, and provide value to families and communities in other ways. Also, it's water. Literally water. And many areas have building codes surrounding pools and their safety. Mainly fences and safety covers. Homeowners insurance is also more expensive when you own a pool.
Does that stop every child from drowning? No. Do we know how many times a child was saved because a pool was legally required to have a fence or safety cover? Also no.
Also, there is no one running around with pools or hot tubs in their pockets drowning children en masse.
What a stupid comparison. Guns have one purpose - destruction. You can talk about all the things you can do with guns, but their intended purpose and design is to destroy. The better they destroy shit, the more valuable they are. They're nothing without that.
Yep, no argument there, but that wasn't my point.
Pools and hot tubs are not that, and provide value to families and communities in other ways. Also, it's water. Literally water. And many areas have building codes surrounding pools and their safety. Mainly fences and safety covers. Homeowners insurance is also more expensive when you own a pool.
You do know how many laws there are on the books for firearms right? It's over 20k laws in state and federal gov.
Does that stop every child from drowning? No. Do we know how many times a child was saved because a pool was legally required to have a fence or safety cover? Also no.
What's the point of this? You don't know how many kids on average are stopped by a safer either.
Also, there is no one running around with pools or hot tubs in their pockets drowning children en masse.
Again, so it doesn't matter that 950 kids a year on average drown, because that's just the deaths you're willing to take to have access to a body of water right?
None of that was to say it doesn't matter, it's to say it's a stupid comparison. We can work on drownings and work on gun deaths at the same time. They're two completely different problems.
If I said too many people died in car accidents, you wouldn't say "well what about cigarettes!? Don't care about lung cancer then huh?"
Yes. They both problems. Such different problems it's stupid to compare them.
Pool safety also isn't a divisive political issue that's winds up in the news because people would mostly agree on common sense pool safety. There's no group of fenceless pool enthusiasts protesting for their right to own a pool that a child could easily drown in. We would consider those people idiots.
It's a garbage rhetoric "tactic" and you should not engage in it with him.
Going "b-b-but bathtubs" isn't him showing any science on gun regulation, it's pathetic whataboutism, all people like him are capable of.
And even with cars, a mode of transport that can be fatal if there's accident (but the main use of which is transportation), there already is reasonable regulation, because ONE NEEDS A LICENCE TO DRIVE, and there are criteria you need to meet to be allowed a licence.
Says the euro who keeps saying "what about Europe, see gun control works"...lol you've got no idea how the world works kid. Stick to your side of the pond and let me deal with my "3rd world shithole"
It's not "what about Europe", it's "here's a study from a very credible university looking at 130 different studies from all around the world, oh and here's another from another credible university, looking at all the objective information we have on the issue"
Yeah no, I care about children being massacred, and willfully ignorant people like you are the thing that's making life less safe for children in your country. Just like I care about the genocide in Palestine and other threats to basic human rights, I care about the children in your country, and honestly, it's really weird that you've been brainwashed so badly that you don't, since caring for children is a very primordial instinct.
It's crazy that in America apparently you need to be a gun expert to know if you like to get shot on the streets or have your children get shot in a school. Ah ah aaaah, he said clip instead of magazine, he don't even know so his argument is invalid. You get murdered by a bullet from a magazine, not a clip. Gun nuts win again.
It's crazy that you should know a topic and be informed on it to discuss it? Really? You're literally talking like the anti-abortion/anti-contraception dicks who wave their bibles around. So yes, it's good to be informed on a topic.
If that doesn't suggest to you we have a problem that needs to be solved, the problem is you, not whatever you want to nitpick to avoid changing the gun situation in the US this time.
No it is not, a 19/18 year old is A) not a child, and B) those numbers are from COVID as I have explained already. People couldn't drive, so that lowered the deaths which historically have been the number one thing, and suicides went up.
Once numbers for 2023/post COVID are released it'll be back to cars being the number one cause.
So nitpicking it is. (also it's odd that the Surgeon General is making a statement in 2024 that doesn't use any data newer than 2020 - so odd, that I doubt your claim is correct.)
Making a statement in 2024 does not mean you used data from 2024…the year isnt even over, so no the data is not from 2024.
Please quote where I said the data was from 2024.
B) those numbers are from COVID as I have explained already
Covid was 2020. I'm doubtful the 2024 report is based entirely on numbers from 2020. I didn't look, and I doubt you did. But I'm doubtful, as I said.
In any case, it's a tragic statistic regardless of that, and also no matter whether we're cutting off "children" at 18 or 19 - and that's a pretty sickening reason to handwave it away. Deaths are deaths, and these are our youth.
Same with this BS:
Once numbers for 2023/post COVID are released it’ll be back to cars being the number one cause.
Do you not recognize how asinine it is to hinge your argument on this? Let's say it's the number 2 cause of death. Hell, let's say it's the number three cause of death.
We have a problem and all some folks can do is nitpick about irrelevant bullshit that would not detract from the argument even if I accepted all the nitpicks.
Anyhow, I somehow missed this bit of classic internet snark, so you can fuck off with this dismissive and inaccurate ad hom:
Let me guess, you’re like 20-23?
I was getting OUT of the military longer ago than that, which is why I can recognize that 19 is a child in all ways that are relevant to their likely level of maturity, and the tragedy of their deaths, plus be appropriately horrified at the continual resistance to doing anything at all about it.
Good Day, Sir.
Edit -
Not that it matters at all except to folks who want to deflect from the problem, but here's the press release that accompanies that 2024 report.
You posted an image acting like because it said 2024 that the data is from 2024. Don't act like you weren't trying anything else.
Covid was 2020. I'm doubtful the 2024 report is based entirely on numbers from 2020. I didn't look, and I doubt you did. But I'm doubtful, as I said.
I did look, most reports take years to be published because of the amount of data that's available. Usually its 4ish years old by the time it's released. This is just the nature of these reports. Its why the studies from 2015/2016 where the last ones prior to seeing the 2020/21 studies get released.
In any case, it's a tragic statistic regardless of that, and also no matter whether we're cutting off "children" at 18 or 19 - and that's a pretty sickening reason to handwave it away. Deaths are deaths, and these are our youth.
It's not, it's nuance that's being lost. The public hears kids, they think 5 year olds being killed, not a gang member who just had beef with another gang member who's now dead.
Do you not recognize how asinine it is to hinge your argument on this? Let's say it's the number 2 cause of death. Hell, let's say it's the number three cause of death.
It's not, suicide is the main cause of that number. Are you going to feel better because you put in a law that somehow magically stops people from offing themselves with a firearm but the suicide numbers don't drop they just use another tool? Will you stand up and call it a win then? Or will you realize that we have a problem with our society and our citizens need social support and reform first. One of those options will drastically reduce our violence and suicides...the other will not.
We have a problem and all some folks can do is nitpick about irrelevant bullshit that would not detract from the argument even if I accepted all the nitpicks.
I never said we don't have an issue. I've merely stated that guns aren't our issue and I've given solutions that will actually work, I'm not the one nitpicking things. Anti-2a groups are.
Anyhow, I somehow missed this bit of classic internet snark, so you can fuck off with this dismissive and inaccurate ad hom:
Let me guess, you’re like 20-23?
I was getting OUT of the military longer ago than that, which is why I can recognize that 19 is a child in all ways that are relevant to their likely level of maturity, and the tragedy of their deaths, plus be appropriately horrified at the continual resistance to doing anything at all about it.
Good Day, Sir.
I don't know how you got comments mixed up but you're thinking of some other user. I never questioned your age, this user did.
Yea which cites COVID numbers as I've previously stated.
In any case, if deflection, denial, and ad hom attacks are all you got, I see no reason to continue.
I'm not deflecting anything, and I've not denied anything either, and the attacks are not from me as I've pointed out, you must have copied that other users comments thinking they were mine.
You posted an image acting like because it said 2024 that the data is from 2024. Don’t act like you weren’t trying anything else.
Please. I posted it because it would be stupid for the surgeon general to stop looking at data in 2020 for a statement released in 2024. (and that's exactly what I said in my comment with the picture)
So these teenagers you speak about, you think they're not children?
No they're not, most gang related violence here in the states is from 15-19 year olds. Which heavily skew the numbers.
Let me guess, you're like 20-23?
Lol try again kid, I'm probably old enough to be your father.
Yes, 18 and 19 year old are non-fully developed humans. Still developing. Not finished. SO MUCH SO, that they CAN AREN'T VENE ALLOWED BEER.
Is that why they're allowed alcohol in most of Europe at that age?
It's so pathetic the excuses you keep making to try and spin a horrible fact into something that doesn't need to be worried about.
Well considering that 2/3rds (%66~) of our deaths are suicides, then of the 34% left, 85% of those are gang/drug related, and then the last %15 covers police killings (on average 1k deaths a year from the police shooting someone) and then you have the few hundred murders a year from firearms that includes (mass shootings, robberies, muggings, random acts of violence). But you wouldn't know this because you're from a euro country who thinks guns magically make the usa the wild west and blood pours from the streets daily while roaming hordes or mass murders just walk around openly and execute people.
Like compared to Europe, America really is on the level of developing countries, and even worse in a lot of instances.
Yea you don't know what you're talking about.
Science agrees that gun control works. It's just a fact. A fact you won't be able to accept, no matter what.
Science agrees that counties that have social programs that support their citizens have less violence overall... Brazil still is waiting on your "gun control works"...
Keep shifting the goal post to younger and younger?
If you're even close my age, that's fucking sad man. If you've gotten over the age of 35 and still think it's okay when kids die because they're teenagers, live in bad areas (and are usually minorities), then... how the fuck do you sleep at night?
The mental gymnastics is goddamn impressive.
Is that why they're allowed alcohol in most of Europe at that age?
The age of consent is on average 16, and in lots of countries you may have a light alcohol beverage with a meal if accompanied by your guardians. Just like with your driving licences. A "learner's permit" if you will, because we understand that these are kids on the verge of adulthood, so they're gradually allowed to do more and more adult things. You can have a mild drink with a meal at 16, buy yourself drinks at a bar and purchase wines and milds from stores at 18 and when you're 20, no limits anymore. You can drive a <11kW bike at 16, a <25kW at 18 and any power at 20. Because again, developing, so gradually ease them in so they're ready when they're fully-grown as opposed to being a developing young human being.
People's brains don't even fully mature until they're ~26, but you try to shirk responsibility of children getting slaughtered with an excuse of "well most of them are older kids who live in poor socioeconomic areas, so why would their deaths matter".
Like I said, there's never any science with you people, always the same chants of "not kids", "muh rights" (a right to a gun isn't a human right) and "but then only criminals will have guns" and you never ever read any of the science on the matter.
my whataboutism is still waiting
No shit? You're too thick to read a simple summary from Harvard and you excuse the leading cause of children being guns as "most of them are black teens so they're criminals anyway so who cares", so why would you accept science concerning your shitty "what about"?
Here's a summary of the OXFORD UNIVERSITY study I have linked several times:
Santaella-Tenorio's study (co-authored with Columbia professors Magdalena Cerdá and Sandro Galea, as well as the University of North Carolina's Andrés Villaveces) examined roughly 130 studies that had been conducted in 10 different countries. Each of those 130 studies had looked at some specific change in gun laws and its effect on homicide and/or suicide rates. Most of them looked at law changes in the developed world, such as the US, Australia, and Austria, while a few looked at gun laws in developing countries, specifically Brazil and South Africa.
###"... SPECIFICALLY BRAZIL ..."
So why don't you actually read the fucking thing? Just like I've been saying all along, you're nothing but a willfully ignorant gun nut parroting propaganda you've overheard, and you never ever have a single piece of peer reviewed study to support your regurgitated bullshit.
Also, you want to know about the reasons for South American instability and crime? How about a look in the mirror?
In August, the Mexican government sued US gunmakers for facilitating the high gun homicide rate in Mexico. Most people in the US who heard this news were probably confused, not understanding what US gunmakers have to do with homicides in Mexico. If they were to read Ioan Grillo’s excellent book, Blood Gun Money: How America Arms Gangs and Cartels, they would understand completely. They would learn that Mexican law enforcement estimates that 2.5 million guns have been smuggled from the United States into Mexico over the past decade. They might even wonder why other countries in Latin America aren’t also suing US gunmakers
The Americas is the most homicidal region on the planet due, in no small part, to the “iron river” of guns flowing from the United States to Latin America and the Caribbean. The above figure from Our World in Data, based on data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, shows that Canada had a gun homicide rate of 0.5 deaths per 100,000 in 2017. In the US, the rate was 4.63, approaching 10 times the rate in Canada, while in Mexico, it was 11.49, more than 20 times the Canada rate. Excluding the Americas, all countries in Europe, and most countries in the rest of the world had lower gun homicide rates than the US. (Some people incorrectly believe that there is a higher rate of gun ownership in Canada than in the US, but the Small Arms Survey reports that in 2017 Canada had 34.7 guns per 100 residents, compared to 120.5 in the United States. The gun ownership rate in the US is more than three times the rate in Canada.)
Although how would you ever read a book on the matter, when a page long summary gives you trouble.
No...no it does not...how are you even able to say that as a fact lol. Ukraine has lost around 31k soldiers since the invasion. Mississippi does not have 15k+ gun deaths a year.
Military losses are not part of the civilian gun deaths. Ukraine lost only 10k civilians over two years. That's 133 deaths per 1m. Mississippi is more dangerous than an active war zone, that's a fact.
US gun violence rate higher than nearly all Sub-Saharan countries, which are among the world's poorest.
When casualties of military conflicts are factored out, the US gun violence rate is higher than even countries in conflict ridden regions like the Mid-East
Saying Ukraine during an active war which already had lower civilian gun deaths than the usa and then saying "no that's not what I meant" is hilarious. It's like if Germany or Poland were invaded and you said the same thing. You're post is pointless.
Ukraine pre-war already had a lower firearm homicide rate than the US....on top of that, they armed a huge portion of their population when they were invaded...so your point is even worse since they gave out literal assault rifles to civilians and their firearm homicide rate was still lower... sounds like its not the guns.
Lol yea safer and they handed out rifles to civilians...so what is it? Is it the guns still or not? Because last I checked militaries fight each other with real guns, not nerf.
One that would have prevented him from getting his hands on a firearm.
If he's a felon, he shouldn't have been able to possess a gun. Did someone sell him a gun? Did someone let him borrow their gun? Did he steal it from someone who didn't store it securely in a gun safe?
Write the laws so that the person responsible for the felon having a gun can be convicted of murder for the people killed with that gun. Make the liability for owning and selling guns so strict that you would have to be an idiot not to take every precaution to protect yourself from fault.
Because this won't stop unless something changes, and we can't just sit on our hands and pretend it was nobody's fault every time it happens. If we're going to make laws forbidding felons from owning guns, we better start treating anyone who enables felon to have a gun as accomplices in any crimes committed with the gun, without exception. No protections for guns stores or private sellers, just actual enforcement of laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms.
And here lies the problem. There are a ton of gun laws on the books already, but the enforcement of them is the problem. Adding more laws isn't going to change that.
I love it when people are like "the current set of laws is difficult to enforce, but adjusting the language of the law to make it more enforceable is NOT the answer", and then they just shrug it off like there's no solution.
Better laws do solve the issue. As I said, this man got his gun from somebody, and that somebody isn't suspect numero uno right now, so we need laws to change that.
If the law isn't serving us, the law ought to be changed.
Unless you have an alternative plan to offer, you're really just saying "do nothing", which you are welcome to do, but personally I would like to see less violence in the world.
Dude, the problem is that cops do not enforce gun laws against their fellow fascists. If you want better enforcement, the path is to fire ALL the cops, prosecute them, change the requirements for how they get hired, empower oversight boards, demilitarize their armories, and completely replace every single one.
Because until you reform the police, they don't care how many laws you pass.
Oh wow man, great idea. Too many mass shootings? Just fire all the cops. Just like that, no more mass shootings.
ACAB, but if your first step in preventing mass shootings is police reform, you need to step the fuck out of the way and let the people actually interested in addressing the gun problem figure this out.
I'm not telling you the first step for preventing mass shootings. I'm saying if you want laws enforced against fascists, you'd be a fool to let fascists enforce the laws you write against them.
If you really want to understand their perspective, consider an analogous argument involving some other fundamental human right, ideally one that you strongly support.
An easy one is free speech. Many countries without this right believe it is dangerous and stupid, using a litany of rational assertions and examples to justify themselves.
Consider all of the harm caused by people spreading lies and propaganda. The right to free speech ensures the most evil ideas and people can utilize our most powerful social constructs to attack the very foundations that a stable society depends on. etc...
Every right can be abused, and likewise an argument can be formulated against them based on their potential for abuse. Those that support some right typically believe the benefits outweigh the costs.
Let's take article 3 as an example of a fundamental human right.
Everyone has the right to life (and to live in freedom and safety).
Do you think the US would manage to better protect that right if they accepted the actual science on the issue, rhe one which proves people would be safer and there'd be less gun violence if reasonable regulation was instilled on a national level?
Hope this helps, because people like you need to be helped so we can help ensure better fundamental human rights in the US.
It seemed that you were trying to make sense of the gun nut mindset. Gun nuts do indeed think firearm ownership is a fundamental human right, so considering it as such is necessary to understand their perspective.
No no, I'm not trying understand anything here. I'm displaying how delusional gun nuts are, for example by thinking unlimited access to firearms is a "human right"? I mean I know the education in the US is bad, but that's just... next level bad.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. B
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.
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
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.
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
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.
