• Smoogs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I know so many people who think they are helping by critiquing like this when they are not. And also expect a “thank you” for their destructive distraction. If there were a hell I hope they are the first to burn or freeze in it.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In this case I do think it’s a good response. Both sides have a boogeyman, but it’s time for The Final Nightmare. This time, Freddie’s dead. Or wait, maybe we want to avoid little Freddie being dead. My point is, many are intentionally talking at cross purposes, using loaded terms to invoke rage at their target rather than actually discuss what’s in their crosshairs. Someone needs to smack their hands with a ruler until they grow up.

      While we do need a better way to limit the violence people commit with firearms, I have no better idea how but I know it starts with actually talking, using the same vocabulary, facing the same reality, finding goals we can agree on.

      • Tattorack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It starts by making your country better. More like in Europe here. It’s like the US actively goes out of its way to punish people who weren’t born with a silver spoon up their ass. The way the American systems work seem to me to be actively toxic to a regular person’s mental health.

        So you have a country full of a large population of people getting mentally damaged from unnecessary and avoidable stress in life… And THEN there are also loads of guns.

        “But most gun deaths are from people using pistols to commit suicide” gee I wonder if that doesn’t mean something, hmmm?

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean if we want to restrict anything an adult, teenager, or even older child could use to effectively kill four year olds, that’s a long list.

          Targeting the most popular rifles in the country is a poor choice policy-wise though. It does very little to reduce homicide in general, and only maybe somewhat reduce casualties from a category of violence that’s claimed about 1400 people since the sixties.

            • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Anything that an adult, teenager or older child could use to effectively kill a 4 year old? Not really. That’s a lot of amputations and we’d have to come.up with a disposal plan for all those arms and legs. Though I guess with everyone being a quadriplegic the ban on boxcutters would be easier to stomach.

              Being serious though, look at homicide weapon stats in the US. If you wanted to prevent homicides, you’d restrict handguns and crack down hard on gang crime. For example, crank up penalties for concealed carry without a permit up to something just shy of extreme and make it somewhat more difficult to get a permit (not remotely impossible, but basically thoroughly vet people for it and have a yearly renewal that repeats the whole process). Rifles are not remotely a common homicide weapon - more people are killed bare handed in a given year in the US than are killed with rifles of any description.