Smoogs ,

those other countries still have issues.

They just don’t have easy access to guns. Doesn’t mean the guy with schizophrenia down the street found a compound bow and hasn’t been threatening people and requires 5 police officers each and every time someone calls it in.

It doesn’t mean the guy who set himself on fire the other day was a figment of everyone’s imagination.

It doesn’t mean the guy stabbing people in the neck just outside of one of the main stations because the bible told him to doesn’t exist

Or the other guy wielding a machete outside another one of the stations threatening people with it just didn’t happen.

It doesn’t mean there isn’t domestic violence because of someone’s underlying undiagnosed problems.

please stop downplaying mental illness and violence.

Katana314 ,

A man standing outside a station with a machete threatening people has a far, far lower rate of injuries/death than a man with an automatic weapon.

Smoogs ,

Which still doesn’t defend that mental illness doesn’t mean not dangerous. Less bodies is still dangerous. serious injury and harm. Still dangerous

Katana314 ,

This mf out here looking at the trolley lever, and saying “We have an option to hurt fewer people, but we shouldn’t consider it because we should only ever look for a solution that hurts no one.”

Fewer guns means fewer bodies, even if it doesn’t end violent incidents. Even if we’re going to tackle mental health too, that is also a valuable conclusion in my eyes.

Amends1782 ,

I don’t agree with this sentiment. People have a right to armed defense. Ask any woman who’s been sexually assualted, or man even, and ask of they would’ve liked to have a firearm and sufficient training instead prior. I guarantee most will say yes.

Katana314 ,

I’d say people have a right to defense against a reasonable threat - and that there’s some very confused interpretations of “reasonable”.

For instance: A military installation is going to install an AA gun because it’s not unreasonable to think an opposing country might try to bomb them.

But your home is also easily within bombing range of other unfriendly countries. Why not have an AA gun there? (Assuming, for a second, cost is negligible) Because the minute risk that a plane would ever specifically target your home is outweighed by the increased safety risks of having a dangerous piece of artillery in an otherwise peaceful area. In that case, you are making the problem worse, not better.

If a woman has received threats from an old ex, I wouldn’t complain about her carrying something to defend herself. But a world where everyone is using the same excuse, or painting over personal reasons of “It looks cool”, to the point they have more guns than people, is a world that is going to be unsafe either way; especially because having a gun doesn’t necessarily keep you safe from other guns.

Amends1782 ,

We don’t have easy access to automatic weapons (sadly), they’re are predominantly semi automatic

Katana314 ,

The term “automatic” is quite often used to refer to semi-auto. I believe this is because people with any training tend to ignore the full-auto option unless they’re filming a Hollywood movie.

While it wasn’t the point of the discussion, many guns are designed in such a way that illegal fire mode conversion is pretty easy, for instance with bump-stock attachments.

I hope there’s some sarcasm behind the “sadly” portion. Aside from collecting views for YouTube from target range spraying, the only use case I can think of for them is gunning down crowds of innocent people.

danc4498 ,

I don’t think this post is downplaying mental illness. Republicans like to point out mental illness whenever there’s a mass shooting as though that’s the cause.

This post just points out that every place has mental illness, but none of them have the availability of guns that America’s does.

aplomBomb ,

I think the person who made this meme should be put on watch for mental illness

Colorcodedresistor ,


jeremy_sylvis , avatar

Oh, cool - we’re pretending there are no other differences between the countries listed, e.g. healthcare, social safety nets, etc. that may or may not have been shown to be an unavoidable majority of the underlying issues.

Gotta enjoy the meme circlejerk though, eh?

DragonTypeWyvern ,

What, you don’t love neolibs arguing that they need to disarm the masses they’ve kept in squalor?

Because it’s the only moral thing to do, obviously.

CosmicCleric , avatar

From the article…

If we explain this problem as pure evil or other labels like terrorist attack or hate crime, we feel better because it makes it seem like we’ve found the motive and solved the puzzle. But we haven’t solved anything. We’ve just explained the problem away.

Katana314 ,

From other comments, healthcare and mental health resolutions are no picnic in the other listed countries either. Some places handle it a bit better, but the US is not alone in abusing its sick.

HelixDab2 ,

Well. It’s partly a mental health problem, sure. But it’s not just that.

We’ve got a number of things going on that a lot of other countries don’t have.

First, guns are a civil right in the US. Multiple SCOTUS rulings in the last 20 years have affirmed that it’s an individual civil right, and not a collective one. (Which would be weird, since everything else in the Bill of Rights is about people, rather than the gov’t; the power to raise a military was already listed as a power of the gov’t in the constitution, so why would the signatories need to also specify that the gov’t had the right to arm the army that it had raised?)

Second, the US is one of the few developed countries that has extremely poor social safety networks. We have a low individual and corporate tax rate (again, as far as developed countries go), so we can’t pay for the kind of social services that other countries take for granted. We have comparatively high rates of poverty and a far larger economic inequality gap than most other developed countries.

Third, we have a declining public education system; we’ve been cutting public education, and putting more money towards selective schools, like charter and magnet schools (and, in some places, public funding for religious schooling), which decreases the quality of education. This shitty education system means that comparatively fewer people–and disproportionately black and Latino people–don’t have access to goo education, which limits their career prospects.

Fourth, we have a terrible, broken criminal justice system. We focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation, and people that go to prison often find that their opportunities are sharply limited when they get out, likely trapping them in a continued cycle of poverty.

The latter three things contribute to fairly high rates of violent crimes. The first factor makes crime much more lethal.

The truth is that the rate violent crime in the US is on par with violent crime in the UK or Australia (violent crime referring to forcible rape, assault/battery, robbery, and murder), with Australia having a quite high reported rate of forcible rape, the UK having a quite high rate of battery, and the US dwarfing their murder rates.

In regards to spree-killers, there’s not a single profile. The US Secret Service has looked at some thigns that are risk factors, but spree killers are so comparatively rare, and have such widely varied motives, that there’s nothing that they can draw definite conclusions on. When I say that these events are rare, what I mean is that commonly reported figures that claim daily mass shootings aren’t looking at spree killers, but are looking at ordinary crime–robberies, assaults–involving multiple injuries, rather than an active shooter that’s trying to kill as many people as possible. A running gunfight between gang member that sees 2 people killed and ten people shot isn’t what most people think of when they thing “mass shooting”; they’re thinking of something like the Mandelay Bay massacre in 2017, Pulse Nightclub, or Newtown, CT. Some of the people that are spree killers do have a real mental illness; the Aurora, CO murderer is schizophrenic. Many do not.

There’s not a quick, easy answer, because this wasn’t something that happened overnight. The idea that we’ve never had mass murderers prior to Columbine HS is just factually wrong, and Columbine has been 30 years ago now.

sudoshakes ,

In 2021, 8 out of 10 murders in the US were committed with a firearm.

130 people die every day to a gun in the US every day in the same data set.

In 2021, the states with the highest total rates of gun-related deaths – counting murders, suicides and all other categories tracked by the CDC – included Mississippi (33.9 per 100,000 people), Louisiana (29.1), New Mexico (27.8), Alabama (26.4) and Wyoming (26.1). The states with the lowest total rates included Massachusetts (3.4), Hawaii (4.8), New Jersey (5.2), New York (5.4) and Rhode Island (5.6).

The top states are all red. The bottom states are all blue. Speaks to safety nets and education and welfare of citizens correlations as you stated.

The FBI found an increase in active shooter incidents between 2000 and 2021.

There were three such incidents in 2000.

By 2021, that figure had increased to 61.

Franzia ,

Had me at what caused the problem, yeah. However, mass shooters have a deeply significant profile. These are young white dudes with conservative to far right beliefs. This is a demographic whose specific problems are rarely being talked about.

HelixDab2 ,

Younger and whiter in general, yes. Conservative, eh, I’m not sure that there’s solid data on that. Certainly some of the mass murders have had “conservative” motivations (trying to start a race war, targeting/murdering LGBTQ+ people, inceldom/extreme misogyny, etc.), but that’s def. not all of them, and I’m not sure that it’s even half. Nicholas Cruz, for instance, or the Aurora, CO murderer. Columbine. Newtown, CT. Shit, Mandelay Bay in 2017; I don’t think that those had any traditional conservative motives, aside from, “I want to hurt/kill people because I’m feeling hurt”.

jeremy_sylvis , avatar
HelixDab2 ,

Oh, I agree.

Part of the problem you’ve got with looking at their findings though is that all of the things that they’re highlighting as risk factors are really, really common. (Which is fucking horrific, but there it is.) If you made a database of all the people that fit the potential mass-murderer profile, you’d probably have well over a million, possibly 10M people in it. So then you have to find a way of finding out which one of those, say, 1M people will become a mass murderer. TBH, I fit their profile, but I have zero interest in murdering people. (OTOH, I do enjoy competitive shooting, even though I kinda suck at it.)

We’re largely unable, or unwilling, to address these deep social issues. And that’s shitty.

Alph4d0g ,

Those same people who point to mental health are the ones denying any kind of public funding to address such issues (aka voting “no” on proposed legislation). There might be similar rates of mental health challenges in other countries - but we can also acknowledge that the US lags far behind in offering any kind of supportive system for those in need.

jeremy_sylvis , avatar

In point of fact, many of us exist who are willing to recognize the unavoidable underlying systemic issues, continue to promote firearm ownership, and continue to promote community resources, social safetynets, and otherwise helping out their fellow human.

The world isn’t some purely partisan hellscape.

erasebegin ,

well… it is a mental health problem. Plus culture. Switzerland has guns and just as many people with mental health problems as the rest of the ‘developed’ world, but almost 0 shootings.

Polar ,

Canada, too. We have a FUCK ton of guns.

We just can’t open carry them (or own handguns), so it’s not in our pockets next to our phone. When it’s at home locked in your hunting case, it’s off your mind, and you don’t think about pulling it out when people piss you off.

Because of this, we also don’t have people feeling the need to buy guns to defend themselves against other people with guns in their pockets next to their phone.

cricket97 ,

You’ll find most countries that are ethnically homogenous have better standards of living and fewer mental health problems

rengoku2 ,

South Korea and Japan would like to disagree.

cricket97 ,

I did not mean to imply simply being ethnically homogenous will result in a great society. But it’s a component in most of the countries that lead the “quality of life” chart.

rambling_lunatic ,

Along with China, Saudi Arabia, and Rwanda.

doom_and_gloom , (edited )

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

  • Loading...
  • the_q ,

    Uh… Yeah… That’s the point of the post.

    doom_and_gloom , (edited )

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

  • Loading...
  • the_q ,

    Right I think I misread.

    terry_tibbs ,

    As a non American I can’t see a simple solution to the problem, guns are already abundant so banning them won’t magically make them disappear, attempting to sieze them would probably cause a dark stain (ala Boston massacre) in the countries history and you’ve got to deal with the fact that the USA only exists because they had the fire power to make it so which is ingrained in a lot of people.

    I wish there was a magical solution but I fear its a choice between a slow, turbulent transition or a quick, brutal, bloody change.

    the_q ,

    We could certainly stop selling them or ammo, but the powers that be won’t do that

    rchive ,

    If we can’t get rid of drugs, I’m skeptical we could get rid of ammo, either.

    the_q ,

    You’d be surprised how little people need illegal drugs when their basic needs are met, but that’s another convo.

    ricecake ,

    Well, key difference would be that it’s pretty tricky to make ammo in your house, and the demand for ammo isn’t enough to justify the smuggling costs for most of the country.

    It’s kinda like how, despite having issues eradicating drugs, we have successfully inhibited the market for fully automatic weapons, lawn darts, kinder eggs and countless other things that aren’t addictive or at least inebriating.

    Syndic ,

    With a population of 100’s of millions of people, small changes can lead to noticiable improvements. Especially in the medium to long term view.

    There never will be a perfect solution, but there certainly is a lot of room to improve from the current status quo. And that road consists of thousands if not millions of tiny steps.

    Guest_User ,

    Really well put. I do often think both sides tend to jump to extremes. But as always, the best solution probably lies somewhere in the middle

    Franzia ,

    I would say gun control is worth legislating but its actually not the main issue. The main issue genuinely is the mental health and the structure of society creating powerful and complex emotions in everyone: distrust, apathy, anger that is hard to place. And these emotions are a breeding ground for either radicalizing (left) or making extremist (right) and these white dudes with comversative family backgrounds and turning to far right political beliefs rather than facing these complex feelings.

    jeremy_sylvis , avatar

    The solution is to address underlying issues.

    It’s actually very simple. Neither party is willing to do it.

    n7gifmdn , avatar

    Canada has guns too

    Leviathan ,

    If they had anywhere near the process we have to get their hands on firearms they’d have significantly less firearms in the public. I’ve gone through the process and it’s not walking into a Walmart.

    n7gifmdn , avatar

    I own six guns and neve signed any government form.

    RalphWolf ,

    Few handguns. And guns in Canada aren’t a religion.

    havokdj ,

    Mental illness don’t kill people, uh uh;

    I kill people, with mental illness

    OneWomanCreamTeam , avatar

    It can be surprisingly difficult to get a therapist in the US if you don’t have insurance. Honestly, I found the process remarkably frustrating even with insurance.

    I don’t know what it’s like in the other countries listed, but they all have much better healthcare systems than the US, so I imagine it’s much easier.

    Franzia ,


    Have the best insurance - Want a therapist in two weeks? It’ll be a one hour long phone call.

    Want in person? Join a month + waiting list

    Dont have the right insurance? Fuck off or pay $200 cash.

    And thats for the basic Talk Therapy or if you’re lucky Cognitive Behavioral Therapy route. Want a specialist for a specific issue? Waiting list.

    I advocate for books - you can get the therapy + mindfulness setup from a CBT Book for Depression/Anxiety and 10℅ Happier or Eckhart Tolle. Videos are great these days, even Tiktok sometimes. I think HealthyGamer has the best vids.

    crackajack ,

    I always say that this is more cultural than anything else. Americans tend to be more gung ho and are ammosexuals who worship guns excessively. The Swiss have more guns per capita, they are legally mandated to own guns, but they have practically zero mass shootings unlike the US. I’m not deriding American people themselves, I’m just criticising how they handle and view guns. They can do whatever the heck they want, it’s their prerogative, but if one’s rights end with another then that’s going to be an issue. Just relax with the guns and emulate their Swiss brethrens who are self-disciplined about handling guns. Rights come with responsibilities.

    MedicPigBabySaver , avatar

    We have lots & lots of gun nuts here. I hate them.

    Want a hunting rifle? Fine. Just one.

    Want a hand gun? Must prove a need and can have one 6 shot revolver.

    Weapons fully registered with owner finger printed with renewal every 5 years.

    Ammo? 10 rounds for rifle. 12 for revolver. All brass brought in to buy new ammo. Each purchase requires finger print confirmation.

    Fuck anyone that doesn’t like it.

    havokdj ,

    Look, gun politics aside, there is a legitimate reason to have more than one hunting rifle.

    30-06 is great for hunting deer, but would be an extremely poor choice for hunting squirrels and raccoons, considering that there would be very little edible material left.

    MedicPigBabySaver , avatar

    Tough shit. Learn to bow hunt.

    CosmicCleric , avatar

    30-06 is great for hunting deer, but would be an extremely poor choice for hunting squirrels and raccoons, considering that there would be very little edible material left.

    Tough shit. Learn to bow hunt.

    You realize that’s like trying to tell someone to pick up their newly purchased big ticket item from the store using a bicycle, right?

    I get you’re trying to limit the use of guns by limiting the availability of guns and their ammo, but where you drew the line is too extrene/limiting.

    At that point you might as well just be honest about it and try to make guns illegal.

    MedicPigBabySaver , avatar

    Nope. Take it or leave it. I’d even consider allowing multi hunting weapons, eg: shot gun season.

    But, only one long gun in the home at a time. The other must be stored at an official gun locker place, eg: police station, gun club, gun sales store, armory… Finger print ID to swap out which long gun you want.

    CosmicCleric , avatar

    Nope. Take it or leave it.

    Just repeating myself at this point, but …

    At that point you might as well just be honest about it and try to make guns illegal.

    And for the record, I am pro gun control, but what you’re advocating is too extreme to be practical and workable.

    MedicPigBabySaver , avatar

    No. It’s people that tolerate more that are the problem.

    CosmicCleric , avatar

    It’s people that tolerate more that are the problem.

    Don’t confuse understanding for tolerance.

    applejacks , avatar


    MedicPigBabySaver , avatar


    Bgugi ,

    must prove a need

    Ahhh… Racism it is, then.

    HelixDab2 ,

    I’m astonished that you’re smart enough to remember to breathe, much less able to read and type.

    How, exactly, do you think that you get good with a firearm, good enough to be safe, good enough to ethically hunt? Do you have this pants-on-head retarded idea that you can shoot ten shots, total, and suddenly know what you’re doing well enough to not gut-shot a deer? Do you think that 12 shots through a revolver is enough to be competent? Do you understand how ejection systems in rifles work, and that you simply don’t recover all of your brass?

    On a short day at the range, I’ll go through about 100 rounds. I’ve been to an IDPA match that had a minimum round count of 120, and a Gun Run match that required a minimum of 50 rifle, and 60 pistol rounds.

    Beyond this - what other civil rights are you willing to accept restrictions on based on need? Do you really need to vote? Do you need to have free speech? Would you be okay limiting all of your online comments to just 12, and having to delete all comments before you could post anything new? Perhaps you should have to demonstrate need in order to not have your house searched by the police, or to plead the 5th?

    Fuck anyone that wants free speech, voting, religion, or the right to not have their teeth shoved in by cops, amiright?

    MedicPigBabySaver , avatar

    Get fucked, dumbass.

    HelixDab2 ,

    “I have no response, therefore I’m going to rely on insults.”

    MedicPigBabySaver , avatar

    I’ve got plenty of response. Your sorry ass doesn’t like it.

    HelixDab2 ,

    Translation: I don’t have a coherent argument that respects law or civil liberties.

    MedicPigBabySaver , avatar

    Laws need to change. People don’t have liberty for mass weaponry.

    “Well regulated” should mean exactly that. Strict limits and very traceable.

    You clearly don’t like the idea. So, Fuck off and just give “thoughts & prayers” to the next batch of murdered people.

    I’m done with a gun nut supporter.

    HelixDab2 ,

    People don’t have liberty for mass weaponry.

    That is correct; you will not be able to get a tax stamp for an air-to-ground missile, or a laser guided 500# bomb; those are mass weaponry. A rifle or a handgun are not mass weaponry; they aren’t even crew-served weaponry.

    “Well-regulated” means TRAINED. That was what it meant when the constitution was written, because the militia–which was all able-bodied men–were expected to muster when called up, and were legally obligated to provide their own arms suitable for military use, and to train on their own. The writers of the constitution explicitly intended for the individual citizens to be armed, and to train. And do you know how you train?


    And you are correct; I do not support any attempts to cut any civil rights, because that’s how the majority gets away with tyranny against the minority. Ask black people, gay people, or women that have been victims of domestic violence just how much the cops have done to protect them.

    MedicPigBabySaver , avatar

    Don’t be obtuse. You know I meant large amounts of guns. Not weapons of mass destruction.

    Well regulated = well managed, no matter when it’s written. That includes laws limiting ownership.

    HelixDab2 ,

    Well regulated = well managed

    Categorically false. The phrase had a different meaning at the time that it was penned. Words and phrases change and evolve in meaning. You’re simply wrong about this, and about your other arguments.

    Sylvartas ,

    Aren’t ammo, like, super regulated in Switzerland though ?

    crackajack ,

    Ammo is regulated. They can only acquire them from regulated spaces like shooting ranges. That’s why the Swiss is one of the top at sports-related shooting.

    HelixDab2 ,

    No. You can buy it at any gun store quite easily.

    This myth comes from the idea that there is ammunition paid for by the gov’t for the weapon that you used in your term of conscription, that you have to use while you’re at the range. If you want to pay for ammunition yourself at a regular gun store, you are more than welcome to do so.

    killeronthecorner , avatar

    I don’t think you mean it to be, but everything you’re saying is total bollocks.


    Particularly the part about guns per capita

    The Swiss aren’t perfect, mind. They didn’t let women vote until the 70s ffs. My point being that these kinds of comparisons simply don’t work. The US has a unique problem. But the problem is still solvable through gun control, because gun control can pervade culture, as demonstrated by many other countries.

    crackajack ,

    Huh, it must have been an outdated info that Switzerland has the most guns per capita. But still, they have large amounts of guns per person nonethless and yet very virtually no mass shooting.

    As an aside, the Swiss women’s suffrage is constantly brought up as Switzerland not being democratic and being late in the modern world. I’m not trying to justify it, but that is always misconceived. Every Swiss canton in 90s but one kept rejecting the women’s suffrage in their local referendums, because that canton is overwhelmingly populated by couple of hundreds of old rural people stuck in their ways. It took the Swiss Supreme Court to force that canton to finally allow women to vote. Because of that one canton, everyone outside of Switzerland thought the entire country did not allow women to vote until the 90s, which gave the country a bad historical reputation and myth.

    killeronthecorner , avatar

    What I said isn’t a myth though. They weren’t allowed to vote until the 70s. All suffrage movements start and end somewhere and there’s ended later than most in Europe. Over 50% of men in Switzerland voted against women voting just ten years prior to them getting it.

    Which lends exactly to my point: if we’re to pick something to judge Switzerland by, it’s something like that. Not misinformation about guns per capita.

    crackajack ,

    Like I said, it is just one canton. People make it as though the entirety of Switzerland did not allow women to vote until the 90s when it is just one canton. It is essentially a myth. I’m not defending what happened, I’m saying it is a misconception and a myth at best.

    killeronthecorner , avatar

    An earlier referendum on women’s suffrage was held on 1 February 1959 and was rejected by the majority (67%) of Switzerland’s men

    This isn’t a myth and saying “it’s one canton” doesn’t absolve the people who voted overwhelmingly against women being able to vote.

    The result is right here:….

    I just can’t figure out for the life of me why you want to defend this or keep calling it a myth.

    crackajack ,

    Oh you’re talking about the 70s. Most people talk about the 90s when that one Swiss canton still did not allow women to vote on federal level, making as though entirety of Switzerland did not allow women to vote until the year 1990.

    But sorry to be pedantic (and I am being one because I am a historical nerd and annoyed by perpetuation of historical myths), but it is Liechtenstein which is the last European country not to have allowed women to vote until 1984, not Switzerland.

    killeronthecorner , avatar

    I didn’t say anything about them being “last”. You make a lot of stuff up for someone who cares about facts.

    crackajack ,

    I misread the previous comments.

    In any case, voting rights has nothing to do with gun policies. Switzerland is pretty conservative, but it can’t be denied that their gun policies and culture is sensible. American conservatives, usually the proponents of looser gun regulations, could learn from the Swiss. Give credit to where it is due.

    killeronthecorner , avatar

    I didn’t say they had anything to do with each other, I specifically used it as an example of where Swiss policy differs from international consensus, much as American policy on gun control does from the rest of the world.

    I accept your agreement on the other parts.

    HelixDab2 ,

    So, there’s a problem with those statistics; they’re looking at civilian arms per capita. In Switzerland, a large number of the firearms that are in ‘civilians’ hands are military arms. The Swiss–in general–have to serve a term in the military as conscripts, and then have the option of taking their issued rifle home with them. That’s not a “civilian” weapon though. I strongly suspect that once you account for the assault weapons–real, select-fire assault weapons, not assault-style firearms–that the numbers go up sharply. Likely not to American levels. But much higher than they are listed.

    Franzia ,

    Dog there is 1.5 guns per american

    HelixDab2 ,

    Yay! I get to be above average in at least one thing!

    Seriously though - the numbers and averages don’t really give a good picture of gun ownership in the US. Something like 40-ish% of US households have at least one firearm. But then somewhere around 1-5% of people in the US have something like 50% of all of the guns in the US (I’m pulling these numbers out of my ass, but it’s pretty stark). If you get into competitive shooting, it ends up being really easy to have a lot of guns. So while the average might be 1.5, lots of people have no firearms at all, and a relatively small number of people have, like 20 each.

    killeronthecorner , avatar

    Those rifles are transferred to civilian ownership once they are discharged from the military.

    Happy to see a source that says otherwise but it’s illogical that because you previously served your gun is somehow “still in the military”. Especially given that virtually anyone is free to own a gun once they’ve discharged.

    HelixDab2 ,

    Up until recently, you were given a block of ammunition for the gun that you were supposed to keep sealed in case of the militia being called up. So you were given gov’t ammunition for a civilian weapon? IDK.

    It seems like the numbers are getting fudged somewhere, partly because the Swiss don’t keep any kind of official records. I saw one claim that put the number at roughly double the one cited, so…?

    Polar ,

    So most countries have 70% less guns, but 100% less shootings.

    Math still doesn’t math.

    killeronthecorner , avatar

    For a non-linear graph of gun deaths x guns, it absolutely does.

    jeremy_sylvis , avatar

    But the problem is still solvable through gun control, because gun control can pervade culture, as demonstrated by many other countries.

    How likely do you believe it is to bring about the constitutional amendment necessary to ban firearms? To gain support of 2/3s the states in addition to a 2/3 majority in Congress?

    That aside, you could argue symptoms could be addressed through such extremes if it were possible to do so, but you couldn’t argue such measures address underlying issues - solve problems.

    killeronthecorner , avatar

    Yeah I’m not arguing for a ban, not even for the reasons of political support; it’s simply unworkable due to the “genie being out the bottle”.

    applejacks , avatar

    The Swiss have more guns per capita, they are legally mandated to own guns, but they have practically zero mass shootings unlike the US.

    their country is filled with Swiss people.

    we are a mentally ill melting pot of dozens of different cultures (some that praise violence) that barely tolerate each other.

    crackajack ,

    Switzerland has 25% of population composed of immigrants. Canada is just as diverse and wealthy as the US and also possess many guns, but still has little to no mass shootings. I’d say it is more to do with cultural approach to guns by each countries.

    applejacks , avatar

    Yes, from where?

    Swiss 69.2%, German 4.2%, Italian 3.2%, Portuguese 2.5%, French 2.1%, Kosovan 1.1%, Turkish 1%, other 16.7%

    crackajack ,

    The point being?

    jeremy_sylvis , avatar
    cricket97 ,

    Switzerland is ethnically homogenous.

    Kornblumenratte , (edited )

    Switzerland is ethnically among the most inhomogeneous countries in Europe. The 59.3 % indigenous population is already split among 6 ethnicities – French, Italian, Swiss-German and 3 Romansh. 39.2 % of the population are migrants.

    Get your facts straight.


    Edit: the percentage of first-generation migrants seems to be double that of the US, by the way.…/anteil-der-immigranten-in-den-u…

    cricket97 ,

    “migrant” doesn’t automatically make them nonwhite. I classify “French, Italian, Swiss-German and 3 Romansh” as white.

    Kornblumenratte ,

    Only anemic, Vitamin D-depleted Swiss are white. Some other sick Swiss are red, gray or yellowish. Healthy Swiss come in all colors from rosé to beige to all shades of brown to black, the same is true for immigrants to Switzerland.

    Somehow you lost the term “ethnicity” in your answer and shifted the discussion to skin colour. Assuming this is a reference to the stupid American concept of “race” – please reconnect to reality!

    Skin colour and genetic heritage are completely unrelated to ethnicity.

    There are Bavarians with a skin type of Fitzgerald VI and Afroamericans with a skin type of Fitzgerald II.

    Until the early 20^th century, the American idea of “white” refered to protestant germanic people only – Swiss French, Swiss Italian and Swiss Romansh people might be considered to be “white” by you, but were considered by Angloamericans to be as non-white as Irish or West Africans for the bigger part of Angloamerican history.

    jeremy_sylvis , avatar


    Ah, I see we’re using conservative tactics in making an “other” group demonize and alienate.

    I always say that this is more cultural than anything else.

    In the sense that culture is a complete lack of social safety nets, affordable and accessible healthcare and community support resources, broken ERPO laws, etc., sure.

    You could argue rampant media oversensationalism of such violence glorifies it and further incentivizes it to those seeking to commit such a gruesome suicide, but that’s less culture and more partisan wedge-driving and profiteering off ad revenue.

    I’m just criticising how they handle and view guns.

    How do you believe we view firearms? I’m interested in hearing how we can do whatever the heck [we] want.

    Just relax with the guns and emulate their Swiss brethrens who are self-disciplined about handling guns. Rights come with responsibilities.

    It’s fortunate, then, that the vast majority of firearm owners are responsible.

    crackajack ,

    Is it really political partisan though? America is the only developed country with disproportionately high level of mass shootings compared to others. Not to denigrate developing countries, but this high rate of mass shooting in US is comparable to those in developing nations, because these countries have rampant corruption and lack of enforcement of rule of law. And the level of violence is manifestation of that. The US is developed one and is put to much higher standard as a result.

    intensely_human ,

    No those places’ history of massacres were enacted by perfectly “sane” governments

    PoliticalAgitator ,

    But American gun owners with their super cool guns stopped it happening there right?

    intensely_human ,

    So far yeah

    PoliticalAgitator ,

    I assumed you were talking about governments genociding their native populations but apparently I gave you too much credit and you actually believe Canada and Australia just routinely massacre their citizens.

    Because you’re a fucking idiot.

    intensely_human ,

    I’m referring to native populations to immigrants, to all groups that are unarmed.

    Unarmed populations get massacred. Just a fact of life. And the armed citizenry of the USA haven’t been. Because we’re armed.

    PoliticalAgitator ,

    It’s bizarre to make something that doesn’t hold up to 3 minutes of fact checking such a large part of your personality.

    frozencat ,

    as a australian this is complete crap people here either alcoholics, depressed or corrupt politicians

    uis , avatar

    Dunno. Just recently(2 days ago) people without any guns hijacked an airport.

    And are there mass shooting in Finland or Ukraine. Besides putin’s mob I mean.

    ZeroCool OP ,

    “Other crimes exist so let’s ignore the obvious gun problem in the US” thanks brainiac.

    uis , avatar

    And are there mass shooting in Finland or Ukraine

    Forgot question mark in the end. I’m not sure you are reading what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote.

    Knoxvomica ,

    I’ll bite, so Finland has per capita the same amount of mass shootings as the US? Or are you disengenuously saying that mass shootings have occured there at some point?

    uis , avatar

    Never heard about mass shootings in Finland. Maybe? The point is as far as I understand in Finland there are a lot of guns.

    Knoxvomica ,

    Jeeeeeesus christ

    teuniac_ ,

    people without any guns

    A mob stormed and airports in Russia. Americans may see Europe as an exotic place, but mobs storming airports is pretty rare here.

    So are mass shootings. While they happen, they’re very rare.

    OrteilGenou ,

    560 so far this year doesn’t sound rare

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • kamenrider
  • Lexington
  • cragsand
  • WarhammerFantasy
  • itdept
  • mead
  • RetroGamingNetwork
  • bjj
  • xyz
  • PowerRangers
  • AnarchoCapitalism
  • WatchParties
  • brutaldeathmetal
  • pixo
  • electropalaeography
  • Rutgers
  • AgeRegression
  • slaythespire
  • Teensy
  • neondivide
  • learnviet
  • mauerstrassenwetten
  • loren
  • steinbach
  • MidnightClan
  • jeremy
  • space_engine
  • artificial
  • All magazines