595
submitted 11 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago

This. I’m a liberal and I definitely think we need tighter restrictions on guns in the U.S., but people today seem to have forgotten that we’ve had essentially the same gun laws for forever and mass shootings have only been a weekly occurrence for about 10-15 years. It’s not the guns or the gun laws or even mental health issues (depending on how you want to define them); it’s some fucked up aspects of our culture.

[-] ThePyroPython@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago

It's multiple issues:

  • Lack of access to mental health services.
  • 24/7 commercial news geared more towards fear than information with no fair and balanced doctrine for reporting.
  • A widening wealth gap depriving those at the bottom of the income ladder the dignity of a stable life.
  • Private ownership of said media suppressing unfavourable stories.
  • Civil forfeiture and warrior cop training creating a mafia attitude in US Police departments.
  • A lack of realisation that the historical context for gun ownership in the US was to keep the natives off the land cliamed by a settler because the British didn't want to repeat Spain's mistakes.
  • More willing to accept licensing and denial of access to a car as punishment for breaking driving laws despite that the car is more fundamental to existing in modern US than the Gun.
  • Treating the constitution like a holy manuscript rather than it's original purpose of being updated/replaced every 5 to 10 years.
  • A broken electoral system in dire need of reform.
  • Underfunding education.
  • Lobbying so rampant they might as well host the bidding for Washington representatives on eBay.

The list is very very long. The USA's cultural fabric that is the people's common heritage is being stretched and torn by those who believe they can make a profit from the scraps.

The USA is a young anglophile country, you've only had one civil war, I reckon you've got at least another one coming.

[-] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 months ago

More willing to accept licensing and denial of access to a car as punishment for breaking driving laws despite that the car is more fundamental to existing in modern US than the Gun.

Licensing to carry exists in most states, though some have removed that. We also do typically remove access to guns (or at least the CCW depending on state and infraction) as punishment for breaking gun laws.

[-] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

Well, and the biggest issue of kids being radicalized into Nazis online. Every one of these mass shooters have a manifesto.

[-] calypsopub@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

Agreed. The root cause is multifaceted. People seem to ignore the fact that the shooters are almost 100 percent male, with the vast majority being disaffected loners, white, and young. What has caused these men and boys to fantasize about killing masses of people? It's far more complicated than folks like to admit. We want a simple scapegoat, so we blame guns.

[-] jamms@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

Using your timeline of mass shooting increases, an immediate reason to consider should be the assault weapon law expiring in 2004. Data would back that up. We haven't had the same laws forever. https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/06/15/did-the-assault-weapons-ban-of-1994-bring-down-mass-shootings-heres-what-the-data-tells-us/

[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Your own source shows that mass shootings weren't as high as they are now prior to the assault weapons ban, thus demonstrating it wasn't repeal of the law that caused the recent uptick. If it was, we'd see a similar amount of mass shootings prior to its enactment as well.

[-] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

You still have mass shootings prior to the 2004 law. For instance, there was the University of Austin mass shooting back in the 1960s. The Columbine shooting in '99. We've been at this for a long time.

In fact, the frequency of mass shootings as defined by four or more people being shot in an incident has basically been flat since 1980 was only a slight increase from about 15 to 20 shootings per year.

It's a big difference is media reporting.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Deadly Mass Shootings, 1980-2018 (pg 12) https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/305090.pdf

[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Yes, but that doesn’t change my point. If it really was the law that made the difference, we would’ve seen more of an impact. Given that there are plenty of other factors contributing to mass shootings as well, I see little reason to credit the law with the prevention some people like to give it.

[-] guacupado@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Exactly. Access to guns isn't the issue, lack of education and failed parenting is. I'm pretty fucking liberal but even in the single generation I've been alive I'm pretty sure parenting has gotten significantly worse. I go out of my way to make sure my kids let me know if stuff is bothering them and explain how to respond to things that frustrate them. I'm sure this is going to go into parents working 24/7 but that also isn't anything new.

I’m a liberal and I definitely think we need tighter restrictions on guns in the U.S., but people today seem to have forgotten that we’ve had essentially the same gun laws for forever

Sure but the same party that works so hard against increased legislation for gun control gutted our mental health infrastructure and votes against funding and rebuilding it at every opportunity. They aren't interested in solving either end of the problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health_Systems_Act_of_1980

https://sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html

This last one is a ddg search - you can just pick which article you want to read about Republicans voting against mental health funding.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=republicans+vote+against+mental+health+funding

[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

You're missing my point. Mental health issues aren't the primary problem when it comes to firearm violence and deaths. Republican resistance to laws that attempt to address mental health issues deserves pointing out, but not so much in this context, because that's not the main issue at hand. Liberals can be commended for attempting to do something about the problem more than Republicans are, but what I've seen of their views on the topic indicates to me that they too are missing the point. The problem isn't guns or severe psychiatric problems; there's a cultural element that no one (including Democrats, for some reason) aren't willing to address. Until we identify and focus on the actual problem, no progress will be made, because we'll just continue to fight about stuff that isn't that relevant.

[-] be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

You’re missing my point.

Sorry, and thanks for claifying.

there’s a cultural element that no one (including Democrats, for some reason) aren’t willing to address.

Is that cultural problem something other than "a good chunk of gun owners fetishize their guns and the 2A itself to the point where preserving those things matters much more to them than the fact that we've now traumatized a generation of kids with active shooter drills, and death by guns has become the top killer of children" - because I can certainly agree that this is a cultural problem, but can't begin to imagine what we'd do about it that doesn't involve changes to our gun laws.

Clearly empathy and logic hold no sway with folks who feel that way sooo...

[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

While I do think gun fetishism contributes, the vast majority of gun fetishists aren't shooting up schools, and many people who are really into guns are also really into gun safety.

If I had to point a finger at any one cultural contributor, I'd say it's actually mass shootings themselves and the way our society has reacted to them in the past. These are always (understandably) treated like major tragedies, but people always want to know what was going on with the shooter, why they did it. There's ironically this huge outpouring of empathy (not sympathy) for the shooter, and these are often people who were very isolated and alone prior to their rampage. I think a big part of the reason we're seeing the rate of these mass shootings increase is that other loners are seeing that going out in this manner draws attention to whatever their personal cause was. So, it's a suicide method, but one that makes it likely people will finally start paying real attention to the issues the person felt plagued by, which is obviously attractive for a suicidal person.

The reason I don't think mental health issues are that relevant, despite what I just said, is that most suicidal people wouldn't even dream of going out in this manner. For those who do, I think there's other factors that make them prone to going out violently. Having problems with society and disliking the direction of cultural change is a big one, for example. There's a reason most mass shooters are conservative--traditionalism is on the way out in many respects, and a lot of people aren't happy about it.

Outside of mass shootings though, I also think there's a different kind of gun fetishism prevalent in poor, urban, cultures—and as much as people may not like acknowledging it—predominantly Black communities within those contexts. Some branches of rap have glorified guns and thug culture in general, and I do think this has contributed to the prevalence of gun crime in the U.S.

There are certainly many more cultural aspects that are relevant, but I think those are some of the strongest contributing factors.

[-] Katana314@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I think that it is murky to wade into the division of blame when a shooting happens. I say that, but I want to clarify I'm not just referring to mass shootings - but also accidents, minor crimes that escalate, etc.

I think that malicious actors get much easier access to guns due to the pervasive nature of gun fetishists, and the common availability they provide of those arms, be it by legitimate purchase, theft of poorly-secured guns, or otherwise. I think more accidents happen with guns because gun fetishists are using them more often, and a certain percentage of them are acting irresponsibly - sometimes ignoring one or more of the rules for gun safety.

There are other countries out there with a high number of firearms, but absolutely no cultural devotion to them. A frustrated, mentally ill person wishing death on a community might not even know that three of their neighbors own guns, because they're always stowed in a safe, unused for most of the year unless they're getting cleaned.

Take two people - one who has a 25% chance of making a fatal mistake handling a gun due to clumsiness and lack of knowledge. Another, a gun professional who has a 0.01% chance of making that fatal mistake due to years of training. If the first person never handles a gun once, the chance of shooting someone is zero. If the second person handles their gun 8,000 times, the chances become much higher.

[-] vivadanang@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago

there’s a cultural element

Yup, it's the sick concept of firearms culture, where holding a weapon becomes a character trait and the right to military arms is somehow necessary to protect one's home. It's fucking deranged.

[-] vivadanang@lemm.ee -2 points 11 months ago

seem to have forgotten that we’ve had essentially the same gun laws for forever

this completely disregards the Assault Weapons ban and it's repeal. Which match with the numbers in a stark manner.

[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

They do not and I've already addressed this elsewhere.

this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
595 points (86.7% liked)

politics

19132 readers
4305 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS