Comments by "Digital Footballer" (@digitalfootballer9032) on "Australia Had a Mass-Shooting Problem. Here’s How it Stopped" video.
-
It's a combination of lack of mental health facilities, an emergence of a plethora of mental health medication much of which has proven to cause more harm than good, and a general shift in attitudes and norms in society all kicking off with the introduction of the 24 hour news cycle and the internet. This is of course a very high level analysis, and it goes much deeper, but in the spirit of brevity I will not go on because I could do so forever. It is very apparent to me that this is much more a sociological phenomenon than anything pertaining to the actual firearms themselves, or else this would have been a problem ever since repeating firearms were introduced over 150 years ago.
Also keep in mind that while yes there have been some major incidents in places like Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Canada, and others, the bulk of mass shootings have been the in the United States. Is this a gun problem? No, it is a people problem in a country with a deep gun culture. Mass killings happen and have happened all over the world, but look at many outside of Western countries, and especially outside the United States. Specifically terrorism, where groups like the PLO and IRA as well as rogue individuals loosely affiliated with them used bombs for their weapon of choice. Modern Islamic extremis have used bombs as well as vehicles. One could argue, and correctly so, that in the United States the problem of mass killings is much worse. Gun culture is a quick and easy scapegoat, but again the gun itself is just the tool of choice. The aggressive American culture of getting ahead, being the best at the expense of others, and so called "keeping up with the Joneses" is much to blame, but this has been amplified in the internet and social media era. Those left behind in this endless rat race are more negativity impacted than ever. This is a breeding ground for the proverbial loner that sits in their parents basement on the internet and plots to take out their enemies.
One may ask as well, then why doesn't this happen in a place like Japan, a country where there is even more pressure to perform, and people are worked even harder and stressed moreso. Culture. American culture is the Wild West. Go take your rifle and shoot up the town if you are having a bad day. Japan is all about honor. If you can't cut it, you are dishonorable, and you commit suicide, you don't go after others and disrespect their honor. American culture over the last 30 years has been to encourage people to blame everyone but themselves, and some take it to an extreme.
I am American, and I am pro gun rights. But I see many flaws in our modern culture. We have strayed too far away from the personal responsibility of past generations. Nowadays there is always a pill for that, a quack doctor for that, or a scapegoat for that. I think these mass killers deep down want to really kill their father they never met, their teacher that was too hard on them, or that old school bully that tormented them, but that may not be possible so they just take out their aggression on random people.
267
-
@lemonandgaming6013 I do understand your point, I disagree for reasons I will mention, but yes it is a good point on the surface at least. If nobody has guns then good guys don't need them for protection because bad guys don't have them either. On its face that is a pretty logical argument. But if you dig deeper that is where you will find problems. There are two significant ones.
One. Samuel Colt called his repeating revolver "the great equalizer", and for good reason. Assuming skill of use equal, anyone who held one was more or less equal to their opponent holding one. Factor in skill and a physically weaker combatant may actually prove to be stronger than an opponent who is physically stronger. The point being that if unarmed, or even welding a hand weapon such as a knife, blunt instrument, etc, if you put 5'9" 180 lb me up against a guy the stature of Hulk Hogan in his prime, I am going to lose 99.9% of the time, barring maybe a lucky swipe of a hand weapon. Guns basically nullify brute physical strength. Theoretically in a world with no guns or projectile weapons, big strong men could basically just take what they want from everyone else. Or even regular sized men could just go beat up granny and take her belongings. But give granny a pistol and no matter how big and strong you are, you better hope she isn't a better shot than you. Yes, undoubtedly guns present new problems to the mix, but overall they truly do put the physically weak on more or less an equal footing to everyone else in terms of personal defence.
Point two. The government. The government will always have guns even if the citizens don't. Yes I understand you aren't going to fend off the national army of your country with a shotgun, but there is absolutely a psychological aspect to this. It has absolutely been proven that regimes throughout history that completely disarmed the public were more tyrranical because they had nothing to fear. Again I, singlehandedly would not take down the U.S. military no matter how many guns I had, nor would myself and a large group of other armed citizens, however, you keep increasing that potential number that could potentially band together and the government will think twice before attacking its own citizens. Not saying it would happen ever, but it's also not impossible. I personally would not feel comfortable in an environment where police and military are all armed and I couldn't be. Even though I know that alone still couldn't do much of the shit hit the fan and they turned on the citizens, the psychological aspect is still relevant, both in peace of mind if the citizens, as well as in casting even a small amount of doubt in a would be tyrranical government.
I suppose the second one is more of an American thing than anything, and I know times have changed in the last 250 years, but that's the culture here where pretty much a bunch of farmers defeated the strongest army in the world to gain independence.
12
-
I understand it is much easier to shoot someone than to stab them, kill them with your bare hands, run them over, or build a bomb and blow them up, you don't have to be a genius to figure that out. But what is interesting is that all of these alternative methods increase dramatically once gun control measures are strictly enforced and gun crime decreases. So I am not going deny that one particularly efficient way of killing MIGHT be quelled (and that is of course if the gun control is effective, which is most often is not because it just takes guns away from non violent people and violent ones still find ways to get them), but that fact aside, how is this solving anything when other methods of murder and assault are almost universally increased every time guns are restricted? Quite obviously people that want to harm and kill others will find a way regardless of what tools are available. And quite obviously the problem is sociological rather than weapon based, and especially so considering that, at least in the United States, UNTIL about 40 years ago you could get about any gun, anywhere, legally, on the spot and without any kind of permit, and ironically STARTING about 40 years ago more restrictive laws were introduced in many areas and about 30 years ago mass shootings basically went from non existent to commonplace. And it is an absolute fact that stabbing incidents have risen hundreds of percentage points in places like the UK and Australia in the years since strict gun control has been introduced.
6
-
We can all sit here and analyze this to death, but there is one fact that nobody ever mentions. That fact is that repeating firearms have existed since the mid 19th century, and in the United States from about 1860 until roughly the 1980's or 90's, pretty much any adult could get any gun they wanted at any time with no wait and no permit, excluding full automatics which were banned federally (except for those with a very difficult to obtain special license) in the 1930's, mainly because of gang related crime.
Considering that fact, I find it quite interesting that during an over 100 year span you could practically count mass shootings by individuals on one hand, of course discounting gang violence which is a whole other issue with different problems and solutions. So this begs the question of how is it that less gun restrictions mean less mass shootings? Because it's not the guns, or the availability of them. It's sociological. There are countless contributing factors, but to summarize some of the major ones, it's mental health, extremism, political polarization, a 24/7 news cycle full of sensationalism, and of course social media and internet chats that didn't exist prior to at the earliest the 1990s, and is a proven breeding ground for extremism. I could go on but you get the point. To say guns cause murder is like saying cars cause car accidents. It's flawed logic. It is the person pulling the trigger or the person behind the wheel. When there is a people problem, then we have problems with the tools we use (guns are nothing but a tool). It is also worth noting that a deep gun culture in America dating back to Revolutionary days and into the wild west has simply made guns the tool of choice. You see other parts of the world where more mass killings are done by vehicles or bombs. People who want to kill are going to find a way to do it. The solution is with people and society, not in the tools we use. Yes easier said than done, but that is the key factor. I don't care what political side you are on, it is hard to deny that we as a whole are just an angrier society in general today that throughout most of modern history.
4
-
But nobody can ever explain this. In most states in the United States, acquiring a handgun is a process, and in some a lengthy and difficult one and you are examined very closely in order to get approval. You basically need an almost spotless criminal record, a "legitimate need", and also reliable character references. I was denied several years ago because about 20 years prior when I was 19 I was arrested and not even convicted of simple assault for punching some dude in the face. That's how particular they are in some states. Eventually I was approved because I now manage a small business and handle, hold on site, and transport cash, which the government sees as a "legitimate need".
All this said, handguns BY FAR are the number one weapon used in murders. Number two, knives. Number three "personal weapons", fists, hands, elbows, feet. Number 4, rifles and long guns, including semi automatics. Handguns are heavily regulated in most, but not all areas. Most gun crime is in areas with these heavy regulations. Anybody can get a rifle or a knife, and probably has hands elbows and feet attached to their body. So how on earth is this a gun control issue? The hardest weapon to obtain is the most commonly used. So this implies one of two things: 1) Gun control doesn't work, or 2) Guns aren't the problem, and especially not semi automatic rifles which can easily be obtained by an 18 or 21 year old depending on state with a simple call to a background check hotline, and a short questionnaire which is a joke, yet are 4th behind much harder to obtain weapons, as well as much harder to use weapons.
4
-
3
-
Yes, "gun deaths" and homicides by gun are two entirety different things. "Gun deaths" include suicides, hunting accidents, etc. Suicides for sure shouldn't be a factor because most people suicidal enough to go through with it would just as easily overdose, slit their wrists, hang themselves, or shut themselves in their car in a closed garage and run it to kill themselves if a gun wasn't available. I suppose you could say accidental deaths by firearms are relevant, because without the firearm available they likely wouldn't have happened another way, but these account for a very small fraction of "gun deaths". Using such a statistic is an effective way to inflate the problem and cause panic and discontent, and this is done by design. I might also point out that interestingly enough, with all this pushback on "AR style" weapons, they are also but a small fraction of the whole, the vast majority being handguns because they are the easiest to conceal. But most of the "high profile" mass murders are done with semi automatic weapons and rifles so they get more attention. My state has all but banned "AR style" weapons, yet it is perfectly legal to own (and I do own) the same gun that was used in one of the largest mass murders outside the United States in Norway by Anders Brevik. Specifically, a Ruger mini-14, which is essentially the same weapon and fires the same .223 round as an AR-15, but just lacks the tactical features of an AR. Shows how stupid these pencil pushers in government are.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jonathanwilson3984 Correction. American Democrats USED TO be more or less centrist or in some cases centre right compared to most other countries. Today the vast majority are on an equal footing with democrat socialists, labour, left wing, etc of the rest of the world. Very few are even centre left, let alone centre right. There is now a very defined left and right wing in America in Democrats and Republicans, when historically the two major parties had many members that could fall into many places across the political spectrum, and mainly by region. Southern Democrats were conservative, and northern Republicans were liberal. This isn't so much the case any longer save for a handful of individuals. There are a few "mavericks" in each party, but most are lockstep with the party in both parties. Many individual citizens (not politicians) are outside the spectrum of both parties, whether more left, more right, or a completely separate ideology like libertarian and hate both of them, and count me as one of them as myself a libertarian.
1
-
I will just lay out one scenario for you. A man the size of Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime invades your home and says I am going to take everything you have, kill you, and rape your wife and children. Neither of you are armed. How do you prevent it? You don't. Now let's say both of you are armed, and you are well trained with your weapon, plus you have the tactical advantage of being in your own turf. Now you have an advantage. Sure guns can be used for evil, but there is no other equalizing force like a gun. If nobody has them, you are at the mercy of the biggest and the strongest.
And don't say "these things never happen", because they do. I personally knew and older couple that didn't have firearms, did experience a home invasion by two younger stronger men, and they raped and killed both of them and even burned their dog alive in front of them before killing them just for good measure. Evil is out there, don't kid yourself. Yes, evil may get their hands on a gun and cause terror, but in any one on one situation where you have to defend yourself, 100% of the time if it is against a bigger, stronger attacker you are much better off that both of you, even they, are armed because that at the very least gives you a chance.
1