this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

politics

19103 readers
3459 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
 

President says ‘epidemic of gun violence is tearing our communities apart’ after mass shootings in Philadelphia, Fort Worth, Baltimore and Chicago

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] iamtrashman1312@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

According to the Gun Violence Archive, 21,782 Americans have been killed in shootings halfway through 2023.

I know that's not 100% mass shootings, but that's still a stunningly bleak number. Rounding up from the .97 that's five human lives every hour of 2023 up to July.

[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How much of that is suicide?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is there an acceptable figure?

[–] Ineedcoffee@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Try the other way around: how much gun control would impact in the total suicide number?

[–] Dissasterix@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is the sad reality. Gun violence is generally committed by sick people. Similarly, I saw this chart a few years back on Australian gun/knife violence. The plots are mirrored. Violence is sort of static.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's much more likely to survive a stabbing than to survive a shooting.

The loser of a knife fight dies in the street, the winner dies in the hospital.

I don't recall the origin of that or whether that's the exact wording but the general idea at least has stuck with me.

[–] jimbolauski@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Those numbers are intentionally misleading, they are using people that killed themselves to prop up the numbers. It's disgusting.

[–] lunar_parking@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And those shouldn't count? Do you have any idea how much easy access to guns increases suicides? Many, many suicidal people would still be alive without the easy access to guns in the US. It's one of the easiest and painless ways to kill yourself.

[–] borkcorkedforks@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Things like suicide are far more related to a lack mental healthcare and the stigma around getting help than weather or not people are allowed to own firearms. Not everyone has those kinds of problems. An assault weapons ban is certainly unrelated to those seeking self-harm and most crime.

[–] sombrero@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

a gun makes it incredibly easy to end someone, including yourself. It takes the killing out of killing and I can promise you that makes a massive difference to the number of both killings and suicides.

[–] Katos@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

So we ban pain killers too? Cleaning chemicals? Rat poison?

The gun didn't make you kill yourself. Not getting help killed you. Stop chasing the guns, they aren't the the problem. The problem is that so many people see them as a solution and they need help.

[–] people_are_cute@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just a random thought, what if instead of going after guns, the administration came down on high-caliber ammo instead?

Like, just put heavy barriers on the production of 9mm and higher-sized ammunition to the extent the only bullets available in the market for the general public are .22 LR and below, which are less lethal in general. If not anything else it would bring down gun deaths at least.

Their main argument is that there are more than enough guns in circulation already and a ban on them would only affect the "good guys" while the bad guys will get their guns illegally. Well, those guns are useless without their cartridges, and at some point the country will run out of them if no new ones are produced.

As a bonus, choking out the lethal-ammo supply chain won't even violate anyone's 2A rights.

[–] Firetower@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Two major issues here. One ammunition is an arm and protected by the 2A. You know that people can just cast bullets out of lead like people did for centuries before the popularization of the cartridge right?

[–] people_are_cute@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

How effective would the casted bullets and cartridges be in general? Is it very easy to make quality ones that won't spoil the gun itself?

How easy would it be to scale them up? I confess, I don't actually know much.

Also, does implementing production quota limits amount to violating 2A? Isn't the amendment about securing the rights of the public to own firearms, and not securing manufacturers from regulations?