Did I miss something? Title was "What You Need to Know About The Rise in U.S. Mass Shootings," but seemed to only tell me "number of mass shootings go up" and "lack of consensus on what qualifies as a mass shooting." The title I saw on HN, "U.S. Mass Shootings on Rise No Matter How You Define Them", seems way more appropriate for an article that never even tries to get into determining causal factors or solutions.
Image you're desperate to feel special. You want to be famous but every crazy thing you've done has gotten no attention.
And then you see a mass murderer's face plastered everywhere. Links to their rap songs. Long new stories about their lives.
There are several campaigns that argue that this is what is causing the proliferation of mass murders.
Every developed country in the world has access to mass media built in the image of the American networks (not to mention the American networks themselves). Mass shootings don't happen very often in any of those places though. Just America. It's the guns.
The guns are obviously a huge part of it, but there are enough data points within the US and when compared to other countries with high gun ownership (Switzerland being the favourite example of the gun lobby) that it's clearly not just the guns. Even if the US didn't have a problem with mass shootings it would still appear to the rest of the developed world as a country with major issues that don't typically occur elsewhere (Trump, covid, supreme court rulings etc. etc.). But the guns is probably the easiest problem to solve physically, even if it's politically impossible.
On the other hand, potential shooters in other nations cannot count on US media or there domestic media to report on their potential shooting the was US media does in the US.
It's funny how everyone has their own take on what the "real" problem is that seems to absolve their own "side" of any responsibility. And, I'll grant that this is a real issue and that there's too much media coverage of these things, focusing too much on the personalities of the criminals. But that said...
Mass murderers have been famous throughout history (by at least one reasonable definition, most of "history" is defined as a list of who killed who). But in 1962 the most effective weapon you could find to perform one was a bolt action hunting rifle, breech loading shotgun, or plausibly a six-shot revolver that took 90+ seconds to reload. Now you run to the corner store and get equipment that can deliver a hundred rounds in a minute. Arguing that this simple issue of equipment technology and availability is not at least part of the problem seems ridiculous on its face.
You could legally own a machine gun in 1962. Plenty of options were available, including the AR-15 — with full auto, which is no longer available today.
Also, a six shot revolver can be reloaded in seconds using a speed loader; basically, a piece of plastic that holds six rounds of ammunition in the right position to drop directly into the cylinder.
> I believe in stricter gun control, but the US was awash with civilian M1s in 1960s. The civilian marksmanship program gave them out for peanuts.
Specifically, M-1 Carbines, which are all gone now from that program. My understanding is they're the easy-to-shoot, high-capacity magazine-fed predecessor to the AR-15.
Do you have evidence that "far-right radicalization" has led to a significant increase in mass shootings? From what I can tell most recentass shootings don't seem to involve much of any coherent political agenda (incoherent ramblings attributable mostly to mental illness excepted)
You made the initial claim. Georgelemental asked you for evidence. The burden of proof is on you, the maker of the initial claim.
And, Georgelemental clearly labeled what he said as his "perception". It seems a bit unreasonable to ask for a source for something as weak as a perception. (And, adding more question marks doesn't make it any more reasonable.)
Counterpoint to what? You claimed one political side does the shootings, I just verified if you are aware which side. If you have shown hundreds of right wing political activists shooting the Democrat politicians then your request might have made some sense. Other than OK bombing I've not heard of right wing political terror, all famous terrorists are leftists.
PS. Well, remembered another one, Ted "UNA Bomber" Kaczynski. That's two (if we count McVeigh right wing from being religious and pro-gun) against entire organizations and individuals on the left. From Angela Davis to the dude caught couple of weeks ago while trying to assassinate a Justice, from the M19CO to the Weather Underground.
A 2017 report by The Nation Institute and the Center for Investigative Reporting analyzed a list of the terrorist incidents which occurred in the US between 2008 and 2016.[0] It found:[1] 115 Far right inspired terrorist incidents. 35% of these incidents were foiled (this number means that no terrorist attacks occurred) and 29% of them resulted in fatalities. These incidents caused 79 deaths.
(...) 19 Far left inspired terrorist incidents. 20% of these terrorist incidents were foiled (this number means that no terrorist attacks occurred) and 10% of them resulted in fatalities. Two of these incidents were described as "plausibly" attributed to a perpetrator with left-wing sympathies and caused 7 deaths. These are not included in the official government database.[2]
[0] http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/domestic-terrorism-white-supremacists-islamist-extremists_us_594c46e4e4b0da2c731a84df
[1] http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/investigation/2017/06/22/home-hate/
[2] https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf
I am sorry, even Wikipedia does not put at least half of these as right-wing radicals. "Charlottesville Attack" you mean which one, there had been a lot of violence between left and right thugs, do you mean the guy who got spooked and drove a car through a crowd blocking the roadway? And US Capitol Riot, really? Violent Parading? That's right wing violence? JFYI, leftists "paraded" there countless times, most notably during Kavanaugh confirmation. And they actually bombed Senate in 1983.
Agreed. This kind of violence is on the rise because fascism, a right-wing authoritarian ideology that encourages the use of violence for political means, is on the rise. It has already all but devoured the republican party, which already increasingly refuses to recognize the legitimacy of any democratic or legal process that doesn't favor them.
when I first joined HN I thought it was a mix of libs and conservatives, or mostly libs and libertarians, now I see more clearly how it's capital that aligns to fascism
Have you read any of the mass shooter manifestos? I haven't seen any that are far right. The closest was the buffalo shooter's but his also had a lot of far left ideas in it and anyone who's truly part of the Right knows that just going after random Black people is a waste of time given the homicide statistics among them.
He really did seem to be maximizing attention more than anything else.
This last guy they made a big deal about was literally a jew (mother was a jew, he attended a synagogue etc) by the way. They say Hitler was a jew so I guess that's how you can tell the real Nazis apart from normal homophobes. /s
I'd say the more clear correlation is social media. Not only can weak-minded people be pulled down various conspiracy rabbit holes that allow them to rationalize their actions, it's also never been easier to become "famous". Given that these shooters are almost always social outcasts craving extreme levels of attention/validation, social media lubricates their fantasies on both ends of the process. Plus the copycat factor from other mass shooters.
That said there's no doubt there's in my mind economic conditions contribute. The paths to middle class prosperity in the US are fewer and further between than they used to be. That deprives many of even the aspiration of a better life, leading to nihilism, which can be witnessed in many contexts outside mass shootings (what media is popular, sentiment polls, etc).
I also wonder if our Architecture itself contributes. A lot of bedroom community suburbs seem designed to create social isolation. They're just collections of crash pads for long commutes with no communal gathering places.
Recessions, inflation, social media, and loss of communal gatherings also are present in other countries, where mass shootings are rare. In fact, almost all proposed causes of mass shootings fall apart when you consider that the "cause" is also present in other countries that don't have USA's mass-shooting problem. Almost all, but not quite all...
That was designed as a fundamentally subversive set of lessons. I doubt we even have the will to make an accurately subversive movie version of Diamond Age (look at what happened to Altered Carbon), much less create that sort of "book".
I wish this was explored more deeply. I used to think that social media was just another facet of the old media, but I am slowly changing my mind on this. There is a vast difference between how FB, Linkedin or other social media operates and interacts with its audience when compared to print, radio or TV.
Look at HN. We discuss various events the same way ( process-wise anyway ) as people on FB discuss stuff. It is very interactive and we did not seem to develop appropriate firewall rules for social media yet ( as in, just because TV shows a guy running on water, doesn't mean its possible ). For some reason, we take informal social media utterance with more gravity than official White House statement.
Back in 2015 Malcolm Gladwell wrote an article which posited that the issue with mass shootings is perhaps that they're more like the threshold theory of action in a riot[1]: within any large group, there's a smaller group are willing to do something - i.e. say a soccer riot where one group starts throwing stuff. Then there's a group of observers who see "a lot" of people doing this, and decide to join in. And then the people who see those people and think "everyone's doing it" and continue it.
Ergo mass shootings are on the rise because there are more mass shootings, and no circuit-breakers to interrupt "the riot".
That might well be part of it, but I think there's a more potent factor at play: not recognizing other people as people. Increasingly, we each see others as enemies, demons, or at best means to an end. It doesn't matter whether the "end" is a political point, some other kind of point, scoring some fame/karma, or working out something more personal. The impulse is the same. To shooters it's still just shooting meat puppets, not people. The obvious political leanings of most mass shooters merely reflect who has more guns or access to guns, not who has dissociated more.
Given that you could order guns in the Sears catalog with no background check whatsoever back in the day, it's not baseless. Access to guns was demonstrably easier.
It's a baseless opinion that there are "too many guns", without even an attempt to define a range for what constitutes "too many". The implication is "there should be no guns", but that's a moral opinion to be debated, not a fact.
>I wonder if the data correlates to recessions and/or inflation.
The FBI investigated this and found only a minor correlation.
Whereas there is a high correlation between financial crisis and depression. Including suicide which accounts for a very large proportion of gun violence. Which made the FBI discovery rather shocking.
Social media is also minor correlation, something like 17%.
I think the point discovered is that mass shootings are not statistical. They are microscopic in terms of homicide, Mass shootings accounted for under 0.2% of homicides in the U.S. between 2000 and 2016, which spans the dotcom bust and financial crisis. They aren't even close in terms of gun violence or even gun crime in general.
I don't think it does. I was looking at [1], and it doesn't seem to line up particularly well with inflation charts. Nor do the charts I could find based on number of shootings rather than fatalities.
It looks to me like they heavily correlate with presidential elections. Columbine and Virginia tech were the year before an election, Sandy Hook was the year of an election. Even now, it seems like we peak on shootings before elections.
Interesting to see the rise with respect to population. The article shows mass shootings increasing 158% (19) from 12 in 1982 to 31 today. In the same timeframe, US population grew by 46% (105,328,915) from 229,476,354 to 334,805,269. [1]
well, don't be surprised if that never works and the site never changes, because comments like this just make people dig in rather than open their minds. great job!
This is complete nonsense because we know from experience in other countries (UK, Australia) that massively restricting private ownership of firearms is a reliable way to put a stop to mass shootings. In fact it’s the only one found yet.
I’m not American and it’s not my fight but you should be at least aware of reality.
> This is complete nonsense because we know from experience in other countries (UK, Australia) that massively restricting private ownership of firearms is a reliable way to put a stop to mass shootings. In fact it’s the only one found yet.
Don't even have to go that far: see Canada. Sixth in per capita firearm ownership:
Just teaching ACTS and PROVE would probably help reduce a lot of needless carnage.
Yes. But much higher than most other developed countries. Without a crazy high number of shootings, probably because there are fewer 'Rambos' walking around packin' heat, lighting off:
All of these mass shootings are using long-guns, because they are more accurate than pistols. Furthermore, when a mass-shooter is using a long-gun, police (see Uvalde) are less willing to engage, because the police know they're outgunned.
-------
If we cannot stop the mass shootings, at least we can mitigate their damage and improve the odds of local Policemen of having enough of an advantage against the perpetrator, right? No one needs a long-gun for self defense, its too awkward to carry around.
The only people using semiautomatic or automatic long guns are mass shooters. Hunters use simpler reload mechanisms and are fine with it (its no longer a sport if its a 30-ammo magazine in that gun).
Who else needs a highly accurate long gun with high-reload capacity (over 5 shots per reload) ??
> There wasn’t a mass shooting epidemic before 1994
Erm... the 1980s? You know, the time period that led to the 1994 ban on guns? Absolutely huge spike in gun violence and homicides.
> You are demonstrating a fantastic ignorance and ought to recuse yourself from this debate until you’ve rectified that.
There's no point in you having such a weapon. And yes, I'm willing to call you ignorant and backwards for arming yourself with such a powerful weapon.
You ain't gonna be walking around town with a long gun. Your only hope for self defense in a typical "on the town" situation is a pistol / side arm.
If a mass shooting occurs, you aren't going to run to your car and get the long gun. Why? Because you know just as well as I do that everyone else will shoot the first person they see with a long gun. (See Las Vegas shooting: everyone had guns, no one wanted to take it out because they didn't want to get confused as the mass shooter).
> Erm... the 1980s? You know, the time period that led to the 1994 ban on guns? Absolutely huge spike in gun violence and homicides.
There is a major difference between "Gun violence and homicides" and "mass shootings", since mass shootings are ~1% of gun homicides, and gun homicides are ~1/3rd of gun violence. (2/3rds are suicide)
You have to account for the internet and public study of these events.
Mass shooters are studying previous mass shootings, and using their techniques to become more-and-more deadly. Body armor, weapon usage, tactics, state of mind, training.
Its very easy today to look up Columbine and study up to become a mass shooter today. That's just the facts. In contrast, we have no ability to study up on how to defend from mass shootings. Its asymmetric warfare.
----------
There is a pattern. The AR15 platform (and closely related clones) are favored today, for good reason. Uvalde, Stoneman Douglas High School, Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, Pulse nightclub, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook.
It's very unclear that the assault weapon ban is responsible for the apparent reduction in mass shootings, because it didn't actually change much WRT firearm restriction. This [1] is a good "before/after" comparison of the regulation the ban actually enacted. They look basically the same to me, so it's not clear how the ban could have really been responsible for any change in outcomes.
My argument isn't about the "level" of gun violence.
My argument is about the level of damage when gun violence occurs. It is clear to me that events, such as 2017 Las Vegas, or 2016 Orlando Nightclub, are more damaging due to the significant firepower that a lone gunman offers.
If the gunman in the 2016 or 2017 shootings had worse weapons (ie: a pistol), they would not have gotten as far as they did in terms of number killed. These shootings were marked by an incredible use of ammo in a short timeframe.
In the case of Las Vegas, they were taking pot-shots into the country music festival from a distance that outranged all the pistols that the country-music fans had. Furthermore, no one actually wanted to be confused with the gunman, so no one drew their weapon (killing the "good guy with a gun" argument for the billionth time).
More recently (now that the ban expired), we had Las Vegas and Orlando shootings, both using what would have been 'assault rifles' under that law.
-------
The most famous mass shooting of the 90s was Columbine, which only used pistols and pump-action sawed off shotguns, likely limiting the damage.
This is my ultimate point: if you think we can't stop the shootings, then we should do what we can to mitigate them. Forcing the perpetrators to use lower quality firearms seems to be practically effective.
> "Mass fun violence in the 80s were marked with higher powered guns, like the Uzi used in..."
Reading the Wikipedia link you yourself provided, seems like he used the shotgun as often or more than the Uzi carbine. The article also notes that the Uzi carbine used is a) semi-automatic (fires only once per trigger pull, like other ordinary civilian firearms) and b) fires 9mm pistol rounds (about midrange in power and effectiveness for pistols), meaning that its actually not a "higher powered gun" in any way and certainly not when compared to the shotgun.
Don't mislead people. It only makes it harder to pass sane gun control laws when its proponents are seen to be repeating exaggerations and misconceptions.
> As staff and customers tried to hide beneath tables and service booths, Huberty turned his attention toward six women and children huddled together.[23] He first killed 19-year-old María Colmenero-Silva with a single gunshot to the chest, then fatally shot nine-year-old Claudia Pérez[3] in the stomach, cheek, thigh, hip, leg, chest, back, armpit, and head with his Uzi. He then wounded Pérez's 15-year-old sister Imelda once in the hand[24] with the same weapon, and fired upon 11-year-old Aurora Peña with his shotgun. Peña—initially wounded in the leg—had been shielded by her pregnant aunt, 18-year-old Jackie Reyes.[25] Huberty shot Reyes 48 times with the Uzi.[26] Beside his mother's body, eight-month-old Carlos Reyes sat up and wailed, whereupon Huberty shouted at the child, then killed the toddler with a single pistol shot to the center of the back.[27]
--------
This seems only possible with higher-capacity magazines, does it not?
The Uzi was designed as a fully-automatic submachinegun. Yes, he was using a semi-automatic version, but its still a carbine (more accurate than a pistol), and capable of larger magazines unavailable to small pistols.
I'm not being misleading. You can see the weapons he used, and how he used them. The Uzi was instrumental in the high number of shots.
The shotgun / pistol was still used of course, but with lower capacity magazines, doesn't have the same effect (ex: 48 shots in one victim from the Uzi was much easier)
EDIT: Sure, the 48 shots from the Uzi would require a reload (32-round magazine). But the Browning Hi-Power pistol only has a 13-round magazine, so that would have required 4 reloads to shoot 48 times, and would have been far more tedious.
The incident was in a restaurant, not a shooting range. At almost point blank range, accuracy is not that relevant.
> "...capable of larger magazines unavailable to small pistols."
It only takes a second or two to swap magazines with practice so it's unclear that being restricted to the pistol he also carried and having to swap magazines would have significantly changed the outcome. Also note that the shotgun carries only 4-6 rounds, depending on the model, and is more cumbersome to reload yet he killed numerous people with that as well, implying several reloads.
Aside from that, magazine capacity is not what the general public thinks about when the words "higher power weapon" is used, so bringing that factor up doesn't bolster the original post anyway.
> The incident was in a restaurant, not a shooting range. At almost point blank range, accuracy is not that relevant.
Range is always relevant. Especially when you're sending in Police to take them down.
A shooter only armed with a Pistol can be outgunned and outranged by cheaper and easier weapons. A shooter armed with a longer-barrel carbine will be more dangerous against Police snipers (who need to position themselves further back for better safety).
Basic tactics. The range of the gun, the power / penetration of the gun, the magazine, how quickly the gun fires, etc. etc. These all matter.
If the gun is slow enough, you could very well take them out by hand or with a knife even. It is said that at point-blank ranges, a knife is arguably a better weapon than even a pistol. That changes vs a shotgun (large pellets / area, less aiming), and other weapon types.
---------
If the enemy has a carbine, you don't attack in with just a pistol. If the enemy has a higher penetrating 7.76mm ammo and is wearing body armor (as is the case of some of these other mass shootings), you don't go in with 5.56mm Uzi/carbines or Pistols.
The ban was not against "assault rifles", it was against "assault weapons", which is a made-up term that has little relevance to weapon power. Did you look at the picture I linked? I feel like you must not have, because it's pretty clear from looking at it that the ban couldn't have done much, because weapons allowed under the ban were barely different from what was banned. People were not forced to use "lower quality firearms", and were not forced to use lower power ones either.
> if you think we can't stop the shootings
I don't think that. There are lots of things we could do to make shootings less common, and congress just passed (and Biden signed) a bill which does quite a few things which are very likely to make shootings less common.
During the time that "ban" was in place, you could still walk into any gun shop and buy an AK-47 for a couple hundred dollars. The only difference that actually trickled down was a new one would have a thumbhole stock and no flash suppressor, neither of which would have any relevance to a mass shooting.
One should also look at who tends to own guns: general rates can be deceiving. While there are more guns generally, fewer households own them, and certain individuals can have many of them:
Obviously it's not a single factor. The equation isn't `# of guns / X = # of mass shootings`. However, the equation is likely closer to `# of guns * complex social problems / X = # of mass shootings`
Certain "tools" enable for mass killings, and killing is certainly the only thing they are designed for.
Criminals and people with mental issues may get their hands on an AR-15, but it would definitely be harder for them to do so if they are not available to the general public.
And we could do both. We could take care of people with mental illnesses, while not allowing them to carry semi-automatic rifles.
Honestly I don't think we even need to go that far; police should just use the laws that they already have at their disposal. Look at this shooting in Highland Park, here we have a guy who was known to police to be a danger to society to the point where his weapons were stripped in the past. How the hell does this guy pass a background check? Did no one do basic due diligence? Did no one use OSINT to find this guy's social media pages where he was advocating for violence? It seems like the vast majority of shootings feature people who were historically very problematic and yet they were able to pass bg checks. Why is this happening?
The vast majority of shootings are done with handguns. There is nothing specific to semi-automatic rifles that make them deadlier in a school or grocery store.
I don't even know what "ability to spray bullets in front of several people" means, but the Las Vegas massacre didn't happen in a school or grocery store so it's entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.
Call it whatever you want, but the fact remains that the vast majority of gun killings are done with handguns. Yes, you can point to certain events (like Las Vegas) that would only be possible with a rifle, but it still doesn't change the numbers.
To many of the commenters that have almost certainly never fired a firearm, or maybe even held or seen one, it's the mere scariness of them--the boogeyman in their minds implanted by a corrupt media and political machine--that determines their danger.
This is such a cop out. You do not need to have held or fired a firearm to have a valid opinion on the matter. Further, rifle rounds are typically far more deadly and accurate than pistol rounds and rifles provide a better platform for rapid and accurate fire. Rifles also tend to have higher capacities making them easier to dump. My 1911 holds 8+1, my sig p320 with the extended mag holds 21+1, and my AR-15 holds 30+1. I can accurately put rounds in a target with my pistol at, say, 20 yards? I can accurately put rounds on a target at 5-10x further with a rifle.
It's not. Most people in America, especially young voters in city centers, are incredibly inept regarding guns, gun laws, and gun culture. If you can't see the propaganda campaign, I don't know what to tell you.
Being inept at using a gun does not make you immune from getting shot by one. It's a cop out because you should not need to have gun proficiency in order to have a valid opinion on guns. Similarly, owning a gun does not make your opinion on gun control more valid.
> Being inept at using a gun does not make you immune from getting shot by one.
Okay? Not sure what you're getting at here.
> It's a cop out because you should not need to have gun proficiency in order to have a valid opinion on guns.
It's not a cop out. There are too many leading with arrogance and ignorance on gun control, and a vast majority of them are folks who have never gone near a gun in their life. Keep thinking that it's informed voting to understand absolutely nothing about gun laws and gun culture but
_demand_ that it change. That's a terrible policy no matter the subject.
People aren't suggesting how to improve your timing or how to hit the ten ring, which you might rightfully say should only be done by people with gun experience... they're trying to keep people from getting shot. Their opinions matter.
> There are too many leading with arrogance and ignorance on gun control, and a vast majority of them are folks who have never gone near a gun in their life.
So what? Most politicians have never murdered people. Would you suggest they're unable to suggest ways to regulate murder?
> Keep thinking that it's informed voting to understand absolutely nothing about gun laws and gun culture but _demand_ that it change.
In what universe does being proficient with a gun equate with understanding gun laws? You don't go to law school when you're taking beginner pistol courses or getting your LTC. This is just pointless gatekeeping.
> Implying those buying guns are trying to get people shot...? Bold strategy.
Now _that_ is a ridiculous strawman. The only implication is that all people are subject to the absurd risk of gun violence in this country and that their proficiency with weapons has nothing to do with the validity of their opinions on solutions to that problem.
Shall not be infringed is, and will remain (without a new Amendment) a thing. No amount of qualification, justification, or rationalizing will change that. Criminals are already criminal; they will get ahold of whatever they need to commit crimes. There are countless examples of this all over the world, not just in the United States.
I completely agree that states need better care for the mentally ill. The current trend of affirmative treatment, both medical and psychological, is extremely damaging to patients and society. Nearly every gun owner in the United States is law-abiding and has done absolutely nothing wrong.
> Shall not be infringed is, and will remain (without a new Amendment) a thing.
Yeah, and a well regulated militia is also a thing, but that bit seems to be brushed off.
> There are countless examples of this all over the world, not just in the United States.
There is no other country in the developed world where gun violence is such a grave endemic problem. So, no, you cannot compare the US to any other country in the world in this regard.
> Nearly every gun owner in the United States is law-abiding and has done absolutely nothing wrong.
> Yeah, and a well regulated militia is also a thing, but that bit seems to be brushed off.
It's not brushed off. It is obsessed over by progressives, though. Shall not be infringed is incredibly strong language. Does it need to be in bold for you to understand?
Frame the tool argument however you like. At the end of the day gun control isn't even _possible_ in America. A revolution would break out at some point. Is that something that you think is "worth it" to ban scary guns?
> It's not brushed off. It is obsessed over by progressives, though. Shall not be infringed is incredibly strong language. Does it need to be in bold for you to understand?
So "shall not be infringed" is strong language, but "well regulated militia" is not.
> At the end of the day gun control isn't even _possible_ in America.
Let me be frank: this is because a very vocal minority doesn't want to give up their toys. You cannot convince me that people with 10+ guns are out there because they want to take up arms against a tyrannic government. They like their guns the same way they could like cars, or Lego.
> A revolution would break out at some point. Is that something that you think is "worth it" to ban scary guns?
There is no way a majority of gun owners would go to war over this, I guarantee you that, and of those who say they would, I bet that the majority are just LARPers with too much free time.
> but it would definitely be harder for them to do so
You think that once we get rid of half a billion guns in America somehow (lol) the criminals won't be able to get them anymore. How do you explain continued criminal access to guns in very restricted parts of the world, like Europe or Australia? If your solution has leaks like that, it's not a solution.
> You think that once we get rid of half a billion guns in America somehow (lol) the criminals won't be able to get them anymore.
It would definitely be _harder_ for them.
The latest school shooter bought a rifle from an officially sanctioned store. Others just went to gun conventions and bought them from other individuals.
> How do you explain continued criminal access to guns in very restricted parts of the world, like Europe or Australia?
I'll explain it by the fact that shootings are extremely rare, and mass shootings are almost unheard of.
> If your solution has leaks like that, it's not a solution.
This is akin to saying that if a medical treatment doesn't have a 100% efficacy, it shouldn't be considered. Well, it is just not how it works.
The tool itself is dangerous and provides very small benefit. Cars are also dangerous but are too useful to consider banning or restricting. Guns don’t provide nearly enough benefit to justify the harms they cause. I’d like to see the US get a handle on its gun problem because most gun crimes in Canada are now committed with guns smuggled across the border. So your barbaric policies have real world consequences for my country.
"Victims used a firearm to threaten or attack the offender in 2% (166,900) of all nonfatal violent victimizations"
That's from 2014 to 2018, so divide by 4 for a yearly number. Either way tens of thousands of people successfully defend themselves with a firearm every year. I'd wager they'd argue our "barbaric" policies have some benefits.
And while defensive gun use (DGU) has been recorded as happening, what other things happen when a gun is around? At least one study found you were more likely to be shot if you owned a gun and used it defensively:
The politico article is about debunking the claim that "millions of defensive gun uses happen every year" (which I'm not claiming) from a couple of debunked surveys, and provides some anecdotes of failed defensive gun uses and accidents.
The Philadelphia study is interesting, but I'd note that the discussion and study limitations sections somewhat undermines the attention-grabbing headline, as well as the Conceptual Frameworks and Variables Section:
"Case participants with at least some chance to resist were typically either 2-sided, mutual combat situations precipitated by a prior argument or 1-sided attacks where a victim was face-to-face with an offender who had targeted him or her for money, drugs, or property. Case participants with at least some chance to resist were in contrast to those that happened very suddenly, involved substantial distances, had no face-to-face contact, and had physical barriers between victim and shooter (e.g., an otherwise uninvolved victim shot in his living room from a gun fired during a fight down the street)"
So yeah, if you knowingly engage in violent, armed confrontation or an armed attacker has the jump on you and you escalate because you have a firearm, you're more likely to get shot. That's just common sense, a gun a not a force-field. Also 82.21% of the assaults with a chance to resist took place outdoors, so this data is bias against incidents that happen in the home.
I'd say this study doesn't really support the broad assertion that "you were more likely to be shot if you owned a gun and used it defensively". The devil is as always in the details of the situation.
Many of these statistical studies fall into the trap of being technically correct but broadly inapplicable. Technically speaking you're more likely to drive drunk if you keep alcohol in the house and own a car. But on an individual level one can keep alcohol in the house, own a car and have near-zero chance of driving drunk.
As for the third article, I'm all for safe ownership requirements. Quick access gun safes are readily available and even the cheap, easiest to break-open ones will do the job of keeping clueless children away. As a gun owner with a young child myself all my guns are locked up, and the only loaded gun is in a quick-access safe and cable-locked to furniture. If you can afford a $100+ handgun, there's no excuse for not affording a $50+ quick access safe.
Let's say we can somehow (lol) get all law abiding citizens to turn in their guns in America. Guns are banned now! Only criminals have them!
Now, people with declining mental health start using vehicles to commit mass murders. Do we ban cars? Do we ban access to cars? Do you see the problem?
Just solve the mental health crisis. Then we don't need to have 9000 prohibitions along the way.
The success rate of law enforcement shouldn't be a determining factor on whether something should be illegal. I've never heard anyone say "everyone speeds, why is it illegal" or "cocaine is easy to get, why is it illegal"
As to crimimals and gun, at least for mass shooters -
77% of mass shooters obtained their guns legally [1]
As to the effectiveness of a ban-
In 1996 there was a school shooting in Dunbane (uk) that led to 16 deaths. Stricter laws were enacted next year Most handguns were made illegal in 1997.
Later "According to data compiled by the University of Sydney’s GunPolicy.org, the U.K.’s annual rate of gun deaths per 100,000 people was 0.2 in 2015, versus the United States’ rate of 12.09."[2]
Maybe it would take longer here, maybe it wouldn't be as effective but we know laws don't stop 100% of the crime but it helps
Why do people think that every mental health condition can be treated successfully? Why do people think that every bad thing someone does is due to a mental health condition?
In much the same way not all suicides have a diagnosable underlying mental health disorder, not all acts of aggression have a diagnosable mental health condition. Of those that do, only a proportion will respond to treatment.
Perfect mental health care will not make everyone's mental health perfect, in much the same way that perfect health care will not stop people dying.
No thanks. We've been focused on guns as the issue, and the problem has only gotten worse. Time to start doing something for the mental health of your fellow humans.
More specifically, the users' motivations. It seems like they've all got some kind of manifesto or politically motivated target. How are they getting full of such bile? How are they getting the same glamorous "solution" in their head?
It feels like a serious mental health crisis, spurred on by media saturation psychosis. Turning the country into the equivalent of a padded room will not address the root problems of why our society is very sick.
I expected more from the article when it started framing things statistically. It had the right paradigm to look at many factors, and ponder whether they could be causal. But nope, it was easier to parrot the simplistic party line solution that circles the wagons of one political team while increasing polarization with the other.
I think reasonable people would be willing to talk if it wasn't so abundantly clear that any concession is taken as a permission to move goalposts even further. Once that conclusion is reached, the basic response is to say no.
And it goes for both sides. I can't even discuss abortion in a nuanced way, because I am expected to have opinion A and it cannot deviate an inch from its supporter.
But I agree with you in principle, everything should be on the table. That is how normal people deal with issues.
I don't think anyone would say that. But many young people were quite recently thrown into a situation where they're feeling like even after they did everything right like they were told to - graduated, went to college, got a degree - they're hopeless slaves to student loan debt for the rest of their lives and have no hope of ever owning a home, being able to afford to raise a child, retire at a reasonable age, or live as worry-free as the past few generations.
Meanwhile majority of the mainstream political discourse is banal, pointless arguments over stuff that doesn't matter. So obviously nothing is going to change.
I wouldn't be surprised if that contributed to people losing their minds and shooting up parades.
Wow. The mental gymnastics required to contort oneself into the position that student loan debt is more a primary driver of mass shootings in America than access to weapons.
People all over the world subsist on a few dollars a week. And you expect me to whip out the world's smallest violin for little Johnny who murdered 6 people and wounded 20 others because he had to take out a loan for college?
Access to weapons in the US is tighter than it ever has been. This stuff wasn't happening in the 50s-70s when mail-order catalogs sold rifles with zero background checks, and kids routinely brought them to school.
They are a precondition for what is happening. I'm not arguing it's a 1:1 ratio of guns to mass shootings.
I'm also not arguing in bad faith. I could accuse you of communicating in bad faith for not mentioning any of the other countries on Earth. But I believe that would be counterproductive.
Not uniquely evil, but one could make an argument that America's culture does worship violence in ways other cultures don't. The US was founded in violence, after all, by founding fathers who waxed poetic about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. The US famously (and infamously) has the Second Amendment, and a widespread belief amongst its citizens that gun violence is part of a sacred and noble duty, in that it is an expression of the necessary component of liberty for a free state. The US is deeply divided along racial, class and political lines, with a long history of violence along all of those lines. The US never really learned the lessons that other countries did after World War 2, about the dangers of nationalism and militarism. American movies and television are known for their gratuitous violence. The US is the country with the most serial killers.
America's pop-cultural fascination with, and romanticizing of violence makes it easy to consider, it's massive amount of easily available guns make it easier to plan, and its cultural preference for individualism over community creates a tendency towards alienation and a lack of empathy which makes violence easier to commit.
When one considers that mass shootings tend not to be a problem even in countries with high gun ownership, then one needs to look at the culture for answers. And access to firearms but, of course, this is the US and literally no matter how high the bodies pile up, that will never seriously be on the table. I wonder why?
> Keep focusing on the tool, and not the user. It's like the definition of insanity at this point.
You mean the insanity of giving anyone that wants one a weapon that can easily murder dozens of people at a whim? Yes. That is insanity. There is no reason whatsoever that anyone needs weapons like.
As one who lives in Rural areas, we do use guns to keep critters at bay. Sometimes it's needed to put down a rabid coyote after our livestock and I prefer a rifle to a handgun to decrease accidents. (It's harder to shoot yourself with a rifle.)
I find it funny that so many people of other countries have something to say on the matter. You don't understand the U.S. culture, and you probably never will.
I will not concede on red flag laws that prop up false accusation. That's like having a backdoor in your encryption, willingly. And I know how 95% of the people on this site feel about that.
I will not concede on increasing the age to own firearms. There is no other right in our bill of rights that is only given in full well after legal adulthood has been reached. "You're allowed free speech, but only once your mind has developed enough to where you don't say as many stupid things." Sounds terrible to me.
I will not concede on banning certain types of firearms, nor firearm accessories, as the primary point of the 2nd Amendment was to be able to overthrow our own government if it became necessary.
"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin
"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government (...) it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." ~ George Washington
The government will not abolish itself. It will go kicking and screaming. Jefferson probably wasn't talking about peacefully abolishing an entire government. You're being disingenuous if you think so. Washington wasn't talking about the Federal army having sole monopoly over the military supply manufactories, otherwise how would a militia function to keep a rogue military and Federal government in check? They wouldn't.
There is a problem with violence in America today. I'm not disputing that. The solution is not to ban certain firearms. Or to raise the legal age. Or to ban all firearms. Or to require the government's permission before obtaining a firearm. We need to take unnecessary government spending and put some of it towards training people to be comfortable with firearms, and to respect them. We need to fix society to understand the importance and beauty of life. We need to promote having fathers in the home to teach these kids how to behave.
I support fixing the mental health and societal problem. But when it comes to "gun laws", you can "come and take them."
Overthrowing the Government is such a tired 2A argument to make, you have an AR-15 legally, it isn’t going to work well against a tank, or an F35. You can have as many guns as you want, you are still hopelessly outgunned.
The Taliban would like to have a word with you. Insurgency is hard to beat when you have a motivated enemy. And enacting outrageous gun laws is one way to motivate people.
Not to mention, that's not a good argument against the 2A. "Technology has advanced, and only the Federal government has that technology. Guess the 2A is pointless now and doesn't matter." Sounds to me like we deserve more access to advanced technology.
Friendly reminder that private citizens owned warships.
And at least one guy was owed a fighter jet by a corporation [0]. My only response to your warship quip and Pepsi owing some dude a fighter jet is to shake my head and think "Only in America".
Like most people who assume the federal government is omnipotent, you greatly underestimate the sheer size of the country and just how many soldiers (and ammunition, equipment, and, most importantly, fuel) it would take to control all of it. It's impossible, and it's not even close. The most an authoritarian dictator could hope for is to control a few major cities--places where much of the population already willingly disarms itself against government tyranny.
'Overthrowing the Government' in a strongly Balkanized 2 party system is more likely the prelude to another civil war, especially when one party considers an attack on the capital as 'legitimate political discourse' [0]. 'Overthrowing the Government WE don't agree with' is the real subtext here.
"A majority of gun owners (61%) are Republicans or lean to the Republican Party, but NRA members skew even more heavily to the political right than other gun owners. Roughly three-quarters (77%) of gun owners who say they belong to the NRA are Republicans or lean Republican, while only 20% are Democrats or lean Democratic." [1]
> "Choosing not to exercise a right does not mean you can take the right away from those who choose to."
The Supreme Court begs to differ on something so simple as a woman and her own eggs. Can't have it both ways. Having more guns than people while taking away people's right to vote, or right to basic health services etc, is a recipe for disaster.
This is disingenuous. There isn't a constitutionally enumerated right to an abortion, so the tenth amendment relegates this decision to the states. There is a constitutionally enumerate right to keep and bear arms.
Also worth noting the counter argument is that the fetus and the mother may have competing interest. The controversy and lack of guidance in the constitution means democratic process within the states may not be the worst way to go about this.
"Along with decisions relating to marriage, contraception, education, and family relationships, the decision as to whether to terminate a pregnancy is fundamental to a woman’s “personal liberty.” .... that the right to terminate a
pregnancy is a “fundamental right.” ... The Court elaborated that abortion “involves the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy” and is “central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.” ... and is “too intimate and personal for the State to insist [upon]” ... “the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear
or beget a child.” [0]
Pretty categorical.
Again, can't have it both ways. The constitution did not define what "arms" were. The "competing interest" here is for all the lives lost in mass shootings with modern assault weapons.
Again there is no enumerated right to terminate a pregnancy. This is complete fabrication.
An AR-15 (I have no idea what an "assault weapon" is but I assume you include it) is clearly "arms." There's no ambiguity. Outlawing murder is constitutionally sound, outlawing arms is not. Inanimate objects do not commit murder.
> The "competing interest"
Abortion is literally the act of removing or terminating the fetus. Owning arms is not the act of murdering people in a mass shooting. You present a false and frankly poorly constructed false equivalence.
>Again, can't have it both ways.
The constitution literally set it up so we could have it "both ways." Enumerated rights subject to a much more difficult to alter process (such as the right to keep and bear arms). Then, tenth amendment allows issues like abortion to be delegated to the democratic process of the states. If you're looking for a boogeyman here, look no further than the electorate of your state.
ALL weapons of war are arms and inanimate objects.
> "both ways"
If half the US call abortion murder, and the other half treat it as a female health issue, then it's no longer "United" states. That's my point. It's a divided nation and armed to the teeth. Good luck with that.
> If half the US call abortion murder, and the other half treat it as a female health issue, then it's no longer "United" states.
At what point in US history was every state in complete and utter unity with every other state on every topic? Seems to me you have given the perfect example of the logic behind why individual states get to democratically determine their own laws.
But individual states have never been in complete and utter unity within themselves on every topic. Abortion has majority support in many states with anti-abortion laws. So the logic doesn't hold.
If the Federal government shouldn't make laws unless every citizen of every state agrees with them, then neither should states. We should then devolve to autonomous, self-governing collectives based entirely on common political ideology. But wait, not every person's set of beliefs is uniform with every others. People may agree on abortion but disagree on other issues. Obviously we can't have people be half-governed.
The only answer is anarchy, then. Each individual acts as a law and government unto themselves.
> Abortion has majority support in many states with anti-abortion laws
Abortion up to a certain point might have broad support, but polling shows that majority support starts falling off after the first trimester and I believe late to full term abortion availability (which the democrats set as their baseline) only has very minimal support in the general US population. I believe the support for full term abortion is like around 10% in some polling I have seen. Abortion support is definitely not black and white. Lot of gray in there.
Using your acid test though, assuming a majority support abortion access in a state—but if the state has anti-abortion laws, and candidates continue to run and win as republicans with anti-abortion as a core value of the party, then abortion is simply not a hot button issue among many of those voters who might identify as pro-choice on the issue. I know for me, I’m pro-choice, but short of extreme opinion on abortion on both sides, a candidate’s opinion on the subject will not deter me from voting for them. My neighbors are pro-life, but that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy a cold beer and hot dog together on Independence Day. It’s also damned likely we have voted the same candidates despite our terrible and insurmountable differences. Insurmountable differences, according to some maybe.
It's worth noting that "law" amongst groups is not incompatible with anarchy. See polycentric law [0] where competing voluntary systems of cooperation and mutual contracts allow one protection of law. Difference being there is no monopoly on governance or violence by the state, but rather it relies on individualized consensus/consent of the governed.
Of course you can choose to reject all pooled systems of cooperation under anarchy, and be an "island" of your own, and that is indeed the most extreme for of anarchism. The issue being no man is an island, so if you're attacked by someone else for aborting you may not have anyone to have your back. Ultimately you need violence to defend against outside attacks, so in practice most will form some sort of alliance of mutual protection and arbitration for violation of certain "law" (the most basic often agreed upon law in anarchist thought is the "non-aggression principle" which itself is subject to interpretation.)
Interestingly, quite a few "anarchists" have been happy to tell me they'd happily execute a threat to "act appropriately" if they learned someone else aborted, as they see it as a violation of consent and non-agression against the fetus -- so even the "autonomy" to abort is pretty controversial in anarchist circles.
"For more than 200 years, the federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organized state militia; it does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes. The nation can no longer afford to let the gun lobby's distortion of the Constitution cripple every reasonable attempt to implement an effective national policy toward guns and crime" - Warren Burger
And I strongly, strongly disagree with the man. I don't know who makes the logical conclusion of "hm, let's allow the government to permit an entity to obtain adequate arms and ammunition for the purpose of overthrowing the government."
Sounds highly illogical to me. That totally won't ever be abused, like every vague law is, by every political party ever.
Well, most people are not a part of a well-regulated militia. DC v Heller was only just in 2008, decades after Burger's time.
Your hard line interpretation in this thread is a pretty recent thing in terms of Supreme Court rulings, and Burger's opening sentence in that quote is accurate.
>Well, most people are not a part of a well-regulated militia
"(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard." [0]
Also bear in mind the second amendment notes the right of PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. If it meant just the militia they would have written it was the militia's right not the people's right.
> the second amendment notes the right of PEOPLE to keep and bear arms
Your interpretation here is merely one of a few, rather than factual. There have been many Supreme Court justices who did believe the wording gave militias (or "collective") a right. It mostly stems from the opening ("prefatory") clause, and the meaning of the comma separating it from the final ("operative") clause.
Not sure why you linked that definition of a "militia" – has there ever been a Supreme Court ruling that pushed that narrative, or was this just a fun fact?
>Not sure why you linked that definition of a "militia" – has there ever been a Supreme Court ruling that pushed that narrative, or was this just a fun fact?
I linked it because the US Code literally says almost all able bodied 17-45 y/o males are in an unorganized militia (whether they want to be in it or not). Ergo, if only the people of the militia have a right then 17-45 y/o men have the right to the exclusion of (non-uniform) women etc.
The fact that it says "the people" rather than "the militia" have the right is not an "interpretation." It is verbatim. There is nothing left to chance here. If you're deferring to Supreme Court, you know the modern interpretation is that it is the individual right of the people.
Also even if it is only to the militia, US code makes literally almost every able body 17-45 year old male members of the militia. It's basically women, children, the older and elderly, and the non-citizens and non-able-bodies that aren't militia.
> the US Code literally says almost all able bodied 17-45 y/o males are in an unorganized militia
The US Code's definition of a word won't affect most judges' perspective on an amendment since the US Code was published about 140 years after the Second Amendment was ratified. It's an interesting footnote but not much more.
> If you're deferring to Supreme Court, you know the modern interpretation is that it is the individual right of the people
See this op-ed from 6 attorneys general in '92:
> For more than 200 years, the federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organized state militia; it does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes
Really, what you're espousing as factual is utterly the crux of the entire Second Amendment debate, and it wasn't until Emerson in 2001, and the Supreme Court's subsequent ruling in 2008 in Heller, that your view even really had precedent. Before 2001, all federal circuit courts that ruled on the issue had adopted the collective right approach. 21 years is not a lot of time compared to 200 years.
That's not to say you're wrong – these are interpretations – but rather that yours is but one interpretation, and case law could change on a dime depending on future court makeups.
There's a further interpretation between ours that finds that while individuals do have a right to bear arms, they are permitted to only do so "if needed for military purposes," i.e. as part of a militia. This was one that even Breyer, who just retired, held.
>The US Code's definition of a word won't affect most judges' perspective on an amendment
It's not the amendment that it defines though. It is defining members of a militia. Can the government not assign subjects to a militia? That is what this code does. Are you saying this is an illegal militia? Or not a militia at all? US Judges yield to chevron deference all the time including ATF's interpretations on restriction of 2A, why would they not respect US code to be able to define a militia?
The right of "the people" to keep and bear arms is not interpretation. It doesn't say right of the militia it says right of the people. It is not interpretation to note the right was not explicitly assigned to the militia.
Re "the people" as collective right: Does the right of the people to be secure in their persons (4th) or to petition their government (1st) not individual rights? Do I have to be a part of the militia or collective to assert 4th and 1st amendment rights?
> It doesn't say right of the militia it says right of the people
I suspect you haven't been reading my links :)
One reading of the Second Amendment has the opening clause restricting which "people" are being talked about, i.e. "people in a well-regulated militia." This was the belief enshrined in the Supreme Court until 2008, where Scalia had to argue why the prefatory clause is irrelevant.
> Can the government not assign subjects to a militia? That is what this code does. Are you saying this is an illegal militia? Or not a militia at all?
The common understanding of that specific clause as seen through the lens of James Madison (see: Federalist No. 46) is that it protects the rights of National Guard members to bear arms.
I see. So "the people" which is taken as an individual right when mentioned in the first and fourth amendment, magically becomes the militia and not the people in the second amendment (even though they could have said right of the militia instead and did not.)
Then a militia can't be specified by US code, because that wasn't there during ratification of the bill of rights. No they were talking only of the modern National Guard which did not come until 1903, which they envisioned as the militia while magically excluding militia in the US Code. Nevermind that the militias in the late 1700s were often closely related to the body noted in the US Code, which was basically every able bodied youngish man (and possibly also some others.)
>This was the belief enshrined in the Supreme Court until 2008
"Enshrined" is not a good word for it. For instance, as far back as the shameful period of slavery in the US, the supreme court in Dred Scott made the shameful but telling statement that argued blacks can't be considered citizens in part because that would give these black individuals the right of citizens such as the ability to keep and carry arms.
What would be "bad faith" would be to portray a wide swath of firearms law which you so gleefully describe as "enshrined" prior to 2008 (and especially prior to ~1930) as anything more than a racist and systemic effort to disproportionately strip minorities (especially blacks) of their second amendment rights. As a pragmatic reality the white INDIVIDUAL could buy and bear even machine guns up until the 1920s with basically no scrutiny, despite your "enshrined" reality that might suggest otherwise.
Of course, perhaps on this occasion the "bad faith" claim is merely a face-saving attempt or a mental shut-down after various mental gymnastics come against the hard reality of the fact patterns present.
You're right, it is recent. And it's a shame it didn't come much sooner. A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, but that doesn't mean it's the only reason to bear arms.
It's almost like they left an oppressive government where only privileged people whom the government trusts were permitted to obtain arms, and they were like "maybe we shouldn't give the government that discerning power again."
> A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, but that doesn't mean it's the only reason to bear arms
Some would argue that even some Framers disagreed with you on this one.
Stevens' dissent[0] on DC v Heller was that if the Second Amendment "plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank" how can we interpret it to provide protections beyond a well regulated Militia?
What's confounding is evidence that the Framers explicitly did not include broad language. Other state's proposals included language around hunting and self-defense, and they did not make it to the final draft.
> Madison’s decision to model the Second Amendment on the distinctly military Virginia proposal is therefore revealing, since it is clear that he considered and rejected formulations that would have unambiguously protected civilian uses of firearms
I would say that in an age of social media, and in the context of the US, the _perception_ of a tyrannical government is far more dangerous than an actual tyrannical government. There's no shortage of Americans who somehow consider Biden to be a tyrant, so it would follow that the risk of another January 6 (but worse) is extremely high.
The solution is to allow the selling of snipers rifles and AP ammo. Until them, i will believe that the only agenda the NRA is pushing from the beginning is "gun violence is okay as long as it isn't against rich guys like us".
It's only people like yourselves that fight for the right to hold the government to account that allows the US to be such a paragon of democracy where all your people, of any race, gender or financial status is fairly represented by your government.
Those countries that gave up the right to bear arms are such failures of democracy.
If Trump had convinced enough people that he should have remained president after 2020, I'd suspect you would by now have the sort of government that may well need overthrowing by force. Unfortunately the ones with all the guns would probably disagree.
Seriously though if that's your best argument for insisting everyone should have unfettered access to firearms then it's no wonder we in the rest of the world shake our collective heads in dismay.
I think we have a masculinity problem. I think we need males to do traditionally male things and they need to keep doing these things through high school and beyond. Less therapy, more team sports, competition, exploration, adventure, and craftsmanship.
Exactly. Female approaches to male schooling is disastrous and is the primary reason why my wife and I homeschool our two boys. At school, they were saturated by too much feminine energy; at home, we can balance that out between us.
My dad passed away and I was raised by an older sister, mom, and maid. I didn't like watching sports, never caused any trouble, and listened to anything I was told. My mental health was shit. It wasn't till I started playing basketball, pushing around and making shots on 'Jocks' who were bigger and more athletic than me, that I felt my mental health completely cured itself.
Basketball is an amazing game because you can go to almost any court in the evening and you will find guys who want to play. I often play with scrawny, pimply faced guys who I don't doubt have had thoughts of violence at one point or another, but on the basketball court they ball hard and earn the respect of everyone on the court through teamwork and hustle. It's totally evident to anyone who has experienced it how one good play can do away with anger, resentment and doubt, do the work of years of therapy.
Is there actually any real evidence that males brought up without exposure to that particular vein of masculinity are more likely to suffer mental health issues? It's a testable enough hypothesis, though I'd be pretty surprised if a significant correlation was demonstrated, based on my own observations (including of friends with mental health issues that at least partly stem from toxic relationships with their dads. Curiously, one of them was a basketball player).
