Anonymous #2 2w

True

0

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

I understand the sentiment. That’s not where the issue in discourse lies however. And what daily mass shootings are you referring to?

0

Anonymous OP 2w

Isn’t that the issue that your post was about? That people call for gun reform but don’t have nuanced policy proposals?

3

Anonymous OP 2w

The common definition of a mass shooting is an event where 3 or more people are shot, that happens almost every day in the United States

2

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

Again I’m saying you can rightfully so have an opinion on something and it come from a moral place. This is mostly the case with abortion discussions on the conservative side too. However the sentiment is overcrowded after you consider the nuance. For example you’d be ridiculous to say there should be no exceptions and/or think there wouldn’t be a rise of unsafe abortions. These are similar “coins”. When the sentiment leads to discussion it is IMPERATIVE you can offer more than-

0

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

Just an appeal to emotion. Because the purpose is to make a call to action.

0

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

As for your other comment. Funnily or unfunnily enough the whole kirk statement of including or not including gang violence is an important part of that mass shooting discussion. The FBI and many others have different definitions because of some shooting being scene as domestic. The shootings that get the outrage we all typically describe are much less frequent as that crime needs the motive to be poltical, religious or at the minimum indiscriminate

0

Anonymous OP 2w

I’m not sure I understand your point. “Get rid of guns” is lazily phrased sure but it’s a perfectly reasonable action to push for. Reducing the number of guns in the country is a very valid way to reduce firearm violence.

3

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

And there is really nothing of substance to Kirk’s point about gang violence. We don’t have a significantly large gang presence in the United States. Mass shootings (3+ fatalities) happen because our country is flooded with guns. That’s the case for ideologically motivated shooters just like it’s the case for inner city black on black violence that often gets erroneously labeled as gang violence

3

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

Okay I see where the issue is. Please sit with me. “Getting rid of guns” or “reducing” them isn’t a feasible or good idea. Aside from the huge issue of trying to get rid of amendments in the bill of rights. There is precedent to how terribly getting rid of guns would look. You know them well…the most obvious being prohibition and one that could possibly resonate with you assuming you’re a liberal is what happens to countries after outlawing abortion (Poland, El Salvador, Romania, Pre roe v wade)

0

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

There is undoubtedly huge gang presence in America but obviously not in the way you saw in the 1920s. Erroneously labeled gang violence is point I could somewhat meet you with however it is quite literally wide available knowledge that when getting crime statistics these crimes are different, and treated as such. That point is only valid to give insight to actual call to action we may get later if structured properly.

0

Anonymous OP 2w

More of a standing guy but I appreciate it 😅

6

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

I disagree tho, less guns would be a very good thing for this country. Personally I’d be overjoyed if we could rewrite or remove the second amendment but I agree that it’ll probably never happen. Still I think there’s a lot of common sense restrictions we could introduce that wouldn’t require messing with the 2nd amendment

3

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

I think the absurdly high number of Americans shot and killed every year is a pretty bad look too. Also gun bans and abortion bans are very different things. Criminals will always get guns but that doesn’t mean that gun bans don’t save lives, most people who shoot people aren’t dedicated high level criminals. People need abortions but they don’t need guns, they just want them. Society can function healthily without them

5

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

What makes you say that we have a huge gang presence? Could you point me to some info on this if you have a good source? And I know that mass shootings (again, using my 3+ fatalities definition here) can be separated into different types of shootings but my point is that all of them are enabled by our oversaturation of firearms. All of them would be reduced with reduced firearm access

4

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

Sitting requires you to level with someone. To be humble. Obviously abortions and gun crimes are different. The allusion to abortion and prohibition I made was me trying to aid you to see the issue with restrictions. They do not cause a decrease in crime or an activity. They take the safety net away from people who really need it or do something legally and responsibly…ei. Safe abortions, alcohol and guns for safety or whatever else. Again most crime are done by people who illegally have the gun

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

I’d be happy to give you sources if I didn’t just give you references to the topic of gun control that you basically said, “ I disagree thou”. I’m not sure if you truly want statistics. And that goes to our first point earlier. I understand the sentiment but when u want to have these talks they get hard emotions and wanting reality to change instantly can only go so far

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

And organized crime again is not in the way that is easily shown by data. The fbi is not carrying statistics on urban youth being domestic terrorists. And again. Shootings with guns are done with ILLEGAL GUNS. How do you think a law to make legal carries giving up their gun prevents crime?

1

Anonymous OP 2w

Fair enough I suppose, as a shortie I can appreciate leveling with someone. Consider me sat 🤠

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

They’re different in that people need abortions, they do not need guns. Or rather abortions serve a useful purpose, guns do not. When abortions are restricted there are significant and measurable decreases in health outcomes, economic outlooks, education levels…etc. however when you have less guns in a place the opposite is true, there are less homicides, less crime, less suicide…etc.

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

And I’ll note that while most crime committed with the aid of a firearm is indeed done with stolen firearms, the majority of shooting deaths are done with legally owned firearms. Reducing legally held firearms reduces both of these because it makes guns harder for criminals to obtain too, even illegally.

5

Anonymous OP 2w

If you’re asserting that I’ll ignore data or reporting that I dislike I can promise you thats not the case. If the source is a valid one I will happily give anything a look. I’m open to changing my beliefs if valid reasoning points me in a different direction. So if you do have a source the please share

5

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

People have been getting suburbanites to wring their hands over gangs in the cities for decades yet there’s little proof to show that they’re any type of threat or even that they exist in significant numbers. The fbi keeps track of organized crime groups, if these gangs were such a threat then why don’t we see any evidence of it? This lack of evidence supports my claim, if you’re arguing the opposite then you should be able to find some evidence that these groups are real or significant in any w

2

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

-way

3

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

When you have less guns in a society where they didn’t have access you’re right there are less gun deaths. This couldn’t be the case in America. These other places see their crimes committed with knifes or other weapons. The same is said with your point about gun deaths in general. Instead of suicide being the main cause of gun deaths you’ll find more wildly unpredictable outcomes because you changed nothing except the legal access to guns. Not the reasons for crime, suicide, etc.

0

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 2w

For gang violence I’m sure I can find something later I’m going from anecdotal evidence. There are groups of ppl who strike fear into their communities every day everywhere in urban america why do you think these shootings even take place. Live there and find out

0

Anonymous OP 1w

It is the case in America. The relationship I was talking about (more guns per capita = more crime, homicide, and suicide per capita) is from American data. As far as knife attacks making up for lessened shootings thats just not true. If it were then you’d see murder/suicide with lethal weapon killing about as many people as car crashes or cancer, as we see here. In reality they just have less deaths due to murder/suicide with a lethal weapon.

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

It’s also worth mentioning that most shooting deaths in the United States aren’t premeditated. It’s not like most of these people get a gun cause they’re planning to kill this one person at this one time no matter what. Instead most shootings happen because people have guns on them and in the heat of the moment they feel like they need to use them. Or in the depth of a suicidal episode they feel like they’re gonna use the easiest method possible to do something they otherwise wouldn’t do.

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

^which is to say that while reducing guns doesn’t reduce the reason for violence against others or oneself, it reduces the mechanism that turns those acts of violence or harm into fatal events.

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

I mean I’m from Saint Louis and spend a lot of time in the city, I’ve never come across a gang checkpoint or been told I shouldn’t go to a certain area because it’s controlled by a gang. Lasting effects of redlining and other racist policies along with bad economic conditions in the city lead to violence, not gangs. Vacant lots have a lot more to do with gun violence than gangs do.

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

But yeah please let me know if you ever have a sec to find and send a source that backs up your side of this, I’d be happy to give it a read.

1