jeremy_sylvis

... and who additionally lack the necessary social safety net and accessible healthcare the Swiss have which coincidentally address many of the common underlying issues.

ammosexuals

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.

The solution is to address underlying issues.

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

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.

Let's not ignore there are incredibly common underlying issues either party continues to avoid.

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?

If only there were other factors which could impact the highlighted systemic issues... perhaps Canada's notable single-payer healthcare system, social safety nets, etc. impacting the desperation and providing help?

There will still be kids slipping through. They also say it themselves:

Indeed.

So, what's more effective?

Reducing the scope of those seeking to commit such atrocities to a small fraction of those now, or hoping for improvement via symptom whack-a-mole?

https://poemanalysis.com/idiom/apples-to-oranges/

I see we're projecting in our assessments. I can understand how being confronted with proof one's opinion is wrong, may you deal with it with grace in the future.

Right, like bringing about constitutional amendments requiring a majority of states and Congresspeople instead of a change which simply requires a majority of Congresspeople.

So much more feasible.

Because guns are simply just plentiful and easy to get, and too many apologetics keep allowing them to be plentiful.

You seem to be close to a moment of understanding here but not quite getting it. You seem to recognize that there are other tools available to affect such disastrous outcomes we'd be doing nothing to address, but to also pretend that there's no indication nor chance anyone would use any of these other tools.

You seem to recognize the futility of the whack-a-mole game while recognizing its existence.

Yes it doesn’t fix society’s underlying issues but that is a MUCH harder problem to solve than simply getting rid of (as many) guns (as possible), or at least not just allow so mamy people to own them willy nilly.

It really isn't. How much effort do you believe will be required to bring about an amendment to the constitution of the United States?

How much less effort will be required to bring about simple legislative changes? By simple comparison of the two vectors of change, one of them is unquestionably easier than the other. Spoiler: It isn't undoing the 2nd amendment.

Interestingly enough, you seem to double-down on the previous recognition the problem - pressures toward mass violence - would be left unaddressed but with the vast majority of options for mass harm still very much present and ignored.

The goal is to drastically reduce the number of innocent lives being taken ASAP, not to argue about weapons or social ills or all of this other nonsense.

Which is more effective: A change which is quite impossible to bring about, or a change which can be brought about with some difficulty and compromise?

Which is more effective: A change which removes one of unbounded options to bring about a given end, or a change which reduces the count of people seeking to bring about a given end with any tool available?

We both know you know the answer.