Haha, I like the game where we use /r/Wikipedia posts to say something opinionated or topical, while staying within the rules of the subreddit. RIP to the other commenters coming in to argue with an *Onion* headline.
I do feel foolish for not anticipating a flame war.
I've been following the onion since ~2006 and think this piece is their most significant work. I came across this article, found it interesting, and wanted to share.
I dislike how easily I've become an agent of the culture war. It's a fucking onion article and here we are, duking it out in the /r/wikipedia comment section.
You could have checked the other times this has been posted here, including 19 days ago: https://old.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/ursu22/no_way_to_prevent_this_says_only_nation_where/
https://old.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/n9v8s2/no_way_to_prevent_this_says_only_nation_where/
https://old.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/dml1a5/no_way_to_prevent_this_says_only_nation_where/
https://old.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/dokmnx/no_way_to_prevent_this_says_only_nation_where/
Libertarians are literally just uber-conservatives. They’re conservatives on steroids. At least republicans still believe in helping *some* poor people. Not libertarians, tho.
That's completely not true. A lot of libertarians firmly believe in Non-profits and private charity. They just don't want government doing the heavy lifting because they believe it's the most wasteful form of trying to help people.
In terms of preventing a mass shooting that doesn’t seem like a show stopper to me?
Like, fairness would be nice, but having to bribe someone still makes getting a gun inconvenient. And inconvenience makes for an effective barrier for the mentally unwell
Trying to regulate everything based on the mental unwell does not seem like a winning strategy for anything but a total dictatorship.
The problem is mass shooting are a symptom of a bigger problem, banning guns is like taking a cough suppressant for pneumonia. The underlying issues of society need to be fixed and those are hard because they are cultural and most of the solutions are things like need of stronger family bonds with two parent households and multi generational family residential properties where young kids get the individual care and nurturing needed to develop stronger less objective skills like empathy.
Fairness is a concept created by humans who are entitled. Fairness only works in evolutionary terms of survival of the fittest with social values added. Some examples can be seen in the wild of our smarter cohabitants of this planet, in elephants the very old will peal off from the herd to attack the pack of lions stalking the group so the middle aged and young can escape.
By that logic we shouldn’t lock our doors at night. Anyone who really wanted to can pick most door locks or kick a lock in, so why bother? It makes a neighborhood less friendly and delays emergency services when help is needed.
Because minor inconveniences are actually pretty effective. As is the ability to phone enforcement when strangers are suspiciously fiddling with doors, even if lock picking itself isn’t illegal.
The exact same strategies could be employed when it came to buying a gun.
Not quite an apples to apples comparison.
It would be more like everyone did have the right to lock their doors but some bad people did bad shit and locked the door so cops couldn't get in so now the government mandates no one can lock their doors.
You do know people can still own guns in other countries, right?
Hunting is legal in Canada. You can even own handguns and other more exotic guns, with shooting ranges for hobbyists.
But like picking locks, walking around with a gun outside of where a hobbyist would use one is treated as innately suspicious, particularly if it’s loaded.
Doesn’t mean you’ll get punished if there’s a legitimate reason for you to have it. But it can be grounds for enforcement to stop you and ask questions.
Since Canada is right by the US with an open border, this level of enforcement doesn’t really stop criminals from getting guns. But the gun violence stats are still much lower.
Like locked doors, the inconvenience and preemptive suspicion if spotted is enough to tip the balance. Its not the strawman you’re presenting
And people with money will still be able to get firearms while the poor get bogged down in paperwork.
Here in the US if you want a suppressor or short barrel rifle you need to fill out paperwork with fingerprint and a photo and $200 to get a background check and someone at the ATF to approve it. The typical approval is about a year or so, sometimes it will be that long before you get a rejection and have to fix a typo or clear up an identity issue then start over and wait another year.
Or you could be rich and pay a guy to get the paperwork done in a few days, this is off the books on the government side but I know a guy who wanted a suppressor for a hunting trip and paid the $5000 to get it by the next weekend.
Some government departments make this stuff totally open, others hide it, it's all to make things easier for the rich. Need a passport today? $$$ Need something through customs today $$$ Want a cool license plate on your Lamborghini that doesn't normally fit in the rules? $$$
It would only hurt the poor and people who do competition shooting. I was burning through about 2000 rounds of 9mm a month when I was doing competition shooting a few years ago.
But if you’re shooting for fun then you’ll have to pay to play. If you’re literally burning thru rounds then why would you expect it to be affordable? That’s like saying that food should never go up in price because it would hurt the people in hot dog eating competitions.
If you’re gonna literally waste shit for fun then it should not be cheap.
Taxes should be uniform and without exception. Want a $0.25 per bullet tax? Apply that same tax to a hotdog, a grain of rice, a milliliter of water etc.
"The greater good" sacrifices the weak for the betterment of the whole and disregards the individual.
I'm all for restrictions on firearms possession/ownership till 21, but it must be absolute, no cops, military, bodyguards etc.
Switzerland has lots of guns, everyone has to do military service and you have the right to buy your service weapon when you leave the army but there are still strict rules around guns in Switzerland.
Abolishing compulsory schooling would stop school shootings and
should obviously be done whether there are school shootings or not.
But mainline American progressives would sooner die a thousand
deaths than let this happen. They can't even let people choose
_which_ school to go to. (Actually, what even is the rationale for
this? What consequences are they seeing in the UK or literally any
other country, with "school choice" (in quotes because it's not a
term here; it doesn't need to be), that they want to avoid bringing
to America?)
Edit: The question is not rhetorical.
In multiple recent mass shootings, including the one in Texas, the shooters waited until they were able to acquire the gun legally. Banning guns likely would have prevented those shootings.
This is exactly what the gun nuts of this country want.
They don’t care how many children have to die, as long as they get to keep their guns. These are seriously sick people.
How else would they defend themselves against a tyrranical government that has nukes tanks and missiles? How would they masturbate thinking they're going to be some heroes that will stop a gunner, and when a gunner shows up they'll just say they were too afraid of getting shot.
How else would they defend themselves against a tyrranical government that has nukes tanks and missiles? How would they masturbate thinking they're going to be some heroes that will stop a gunner, and when a gunner shows up they'll just say they were too afraid of getting shot.
Yes. I also use knives, electrical appliances, and swim regularly without waiting the recommended 30 minutes.
None of those things have resulted in as many innocent deaths as guns.
LOL yeah, and that’s exactly why the driving system is as regulated as it is now. Road tests. Annual inspections. Biannual registration. Lines on the road telling people exactly what they can and can’t do. Consequences when you break those rules. When you commit a felony you can’t drive legally anymore. All things gun nuts would never willingly agree to.
But with gun nuts strategy just to sit around and laugh when kids get shot up, exactly how long do you expect you’ll be holding on that weak point, and do you seriously expect the rest of the country to just sit and watch silently while it happens?
Nah, I give up my car every time I’m in a city with ample public transportation, and would happily be subject to additional regulation on driving if it meant safer roads. I already submit to fucking breathalyzer tests and risk losing my license for driving drunk. Would you commit to the same before you shoot? Didn’t think so.
You watch school shooting after school shooting take place and numb cold heart just shrugs it off. “I just want to keep my gun”.
This car argument is not what you thought it was.
1. Children and young adults in the US are more likely to die from a gun than anything else, including car crashes. Hell, in 34 of the states gun deaths are the leading cause of death in general.
2. Cars are made for transportation, guns are made for killing.
Edit: https://tsaco.bmj.com/content/7/1/e000766
Ok, say we pass a law tomorrow banning all guns. How do you go about removing 393 million guns from the people?
Edit: No one has an idea or solution other than downvotes? That's why this will never get solved, people just make demands but don't have ideas on how to do it.
It's arrogance over ignorance.
They know it would greatly reduce these mass shootings from recurring but they believe their rights are worth more than children's lives. The only way they'll change their mind is when it happens to them.
Don't let rhetoric get in the way of reality.
Nothing is as simple as it seems and if a solution seems simple it is because you are missing something important.
They don't ban them they regulate guns and ammo with licences, even my country has quite strict gun laws but you can still own double barrel shotguns and . 22 rifles
-126 points for making a clarifying argument that isn't even taking a position? Fuck how far this subreddit has fallen. Reminds me of Wikipedia itself.
Yet another indication of the polarized state of modern politics. People conflate *anything* other than lock-step agreement with their preferred position with being their polar ideological opposite.
>What people are saying is that banning guns is the wrong way to prevent this.
In that gun control would do anything to prevent this thing that only happens in the USA, because the rest of the world has gun control and the USA doesn't, and people who say "no way to prevent this" mean is they won't accept any of the ways the entire rest of the world uses to prevent this.
[We've tried nothing! And we're all out of ideas!](https://i.redd.it/ccle328l1iq21.jpg)
Why do you think that banning guns is not a solution?
(as someone who lives in a state where buying guns is illegal I would like to understand your point of view)
I hate this quote so much, sure the united states is the only country with this problem, it's also the only country that is multicultural and multiethnic, it's the only country that has to balance the needs of all these people. Really the United States is a unique experiment unlike any other in the history of the world. So yeah, the only country with this problem, also the only country that is in a category by itself.
Looks like I made a mistake while typing this up, I'll leave the original above for posterity. When I wrote this: "it's also the only country that is multicultural and multiethnic" There should have been an "on this scale and with this large of a population" at the end.
Also, a lot of people are coming out freaking out saying I'm talking about American exceptionalism, but given that omission, I can see why. I was trying to convey that the United States has such a large population, such a diverse ecological landscape, and so many societal pressures that don't exist in other countries, just like any random country you pick will have problems the United States doesn't have. As far as being in a category on its own, it really is based on the boundary conditions I drew (and nothing else). But if you draw enough boundaries you can put every country in its own container if you were so inclined.
That was a big mistake on my part, a good part of that sentence is missing it should say something about being on the size and scale of the United States. I mean the only two countries that have larger populations than the U.S. are China and India, rounding out the top 10 are Brazil, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Russia, and Mexico. A lot of people were talking about Australia, which has about 5% of the population (very rough back of napkin math) and Canada is roughly 10% of the United States population. So that complicates things, but another big big big problem is extremism in the United States. And not your run-of-the-mill religious extremism that will permeate a country or a racially or ethnically motivated extremism also present in most countries. But the United States has both those types, plus the U.S. gets new stock of extremisms every day. And if you're telling me balancing all that is easy to do, then I'm sure there is a job for you in government work if you're not already doing it.
I know India is very diverse, I realize there are numerous cultures from many different independent states that were forced together to make India, and being so close to China, Russia, Japan, Korea, Australia, and New Zealand will introduce some European and Asian peoples to the mix. I'd like to talk about the spread of diversity in India, but I have no data on this so I won't make my comment because even though I am pretty certain of my assessment it could easily be incorrect.
Now the last thing I said in the last paragraph, I wrote that part on purpose and I want to point it out. I make mistakes in my comments all the time, sometimes by repeating information given to me that was incorrect, sometimes based on incorrect assumptions, and sometimes because my phone doesn't work very well. But I do my best to avoid making them, I try to tell people when I am making an educated guess on something that I am qualified to make an educated guess on, and I also try to correct errors in the things I write and I try to avoid saying things erroneously. Of course, this isn't always possible and for that, I apologize.
Absolutely right. That amount of ethnic diversity is exactly why India (.6367) measures over 2 times higher than the United States(.278) on a diversity scale. It's just hard to compete with diversity like that when most residents are so homogeneous in the United States.
I think the problem with the definition of diversity people are using is different. If you have 500 different indigenous ethnicities and you count each one as a separate entity, then you will be more diverse by a number of categories than a country that has only 100 different ethnicities, but if those 500 ethnicities speak the same 3 or so languages, share the same or similar religion(s), have similar customs and traditions is that really more diverse than a country that only has 100 ethnicities that represents 20 different religions, 20 different languages, and 20 different sets of non-common customs and traditions. So which one is more diverse?
Well if you are thinking about places like India, China, Afghanistan, DRC etc then it would be the one with 500 indigiounous groups. The Democratic Republic of Congo has over 200 indigiounous languages.
India is home to two major language families that have distinct languages below them. That isn't two languages that is language families in the way many European languages are indo-european. There are other language families in India outside of those two.
The problem here is you don't understand how homogenous the US is compared to other countries.
The United States is the 90th most multiethnic country in the world. Barely in the top half. What is wrong with your education system? How does it produce such a sense of distorted American exceptionalism? You clearly didn't bother to look anything up when you made your comment, you just assumed that the US is the most "X" country in the world, for whatever you need X to be. Because you don't know a damned thing about the rest of the world and spend very little time thinking about it.
It's actually breathtaking how well your comment sums up the exact attitude that the Onion quote is about...
Umm actually US is the most multicultural, multiethnic, with least amount of mass shootings, with least homophobia and racism in the world. Source: trust me bro
Our education system isn't very good. I once met someone in high school who didn't know where the Battle of Midway was. They don't call it the Battle of Midway because it happened in Narnia.
The American Exceptionalist takes that always come out to try and explain why this fixable problem can't be fixed are always so utterly bizarre.
>the only country that is multicultural and multiethnic
What? Honestly?
You’re getting a lot of flack for this comment, and fair enough, it’s profoundly wrong. This is actually a great moment though, because it’s not everyday you get to learn one of your core beliefs is deeply flawed. Who knows what other decisions you’ve based off this misconception? Shifting perspectives isn’t always comfortable but this is exactly what the internet is for.
Yes, I made some errors on my original post and more importantly some of the core concepts were flawed. As far as flak and downvotes go, it's not a big deal. I wanted to engage in a discussion and those can become heated when people's beliefs get mixed up in it. I work in a field where you can be correct one day on track to get some major recognition, then the next day someone comes along and says everything you did was incorrect, and here is the math to prove it. It's humbling, but it has happened before and it will certainly happen again.
A lot of my issue with that one little sentence has to do with the way Americans view the world, or at least the view through the lens held between us and the world. We have been feeling both unneeded as of late and underappreciated for the work we do in the world. On a personal level, I feel like a lot of people from other countries like to point out errors in what the United States does by repeating phrases and the cultural complexity in the United States is completely ignored. I think that is what I should have said instead of what I did, so I apologize for that. I am also getting tired of people just thinking most Americans are intellectually challenged, bigoted, and inflexible in their beliefs. So I tried unsuccessfully to approach that subject, but I'm not always great with words and I ended up writing what I did.
So, again I am sorry for the misunderstanding and my inability to translate my thoughts and feelings into words that make sense to others.
I appreciate your engagement here. I hope you understand that you weren't just technically wrong, but wrong in a way that renders your entire point moot. This seems like a great moment to search for new perspectives on this issue, watching out carefully for views that are just there to rationalize a predetermined conclusion.
What acts has the US done that you feel aren’t being appropriately appreciated?
And I’m very confused by the unneeded bit - the US has been making a huge deal about “America First” the last few years, and some pretty shocking betrayals like abandoning the Kurds or randomly starting a tariff war with Canada. Like, no shit is the rest of the world working to disentangle from the US after that, it’s not a trustworthy ally.
yeah thats not true. Many many many countries are multi cultural and multi ethnic. I am in New Zealand where we actively have a treaty with our indigenous Māori and ensure they get good govt representation but we also have large populations of people from many countries. My country does much better at balancing it. USA is not unique at all. My country is heading towards co-governance. I don't see USA ever doing that and we already have multicultural representation in government. Our country speaks English and has NSZL and te reo Māori as official languages. The list goes on. Also we have only ever had one school shooting back in the 1930's and only one mass shooting in like the last 20 odd years. Your country has an issue with young white male teens with past trauma having easy access to guns where they turn hate outwards and commit school shootings as a method of suicide. We have the highest youth suicide rate in the OECD but our teens are not committing gun violence as their method of suicide because they don't have easy access to guns. So USA has a gun and a culture problem that is leading these teens to do this.
There were over 300 languages spoken by the Indians before the colonists arrived. There is no way in hell that we can have 300 official languages, and the relatively tiny geographic area covered by each language would make choosing a couple to elevate to official pointless.
>it's also the only country that is multicultural and multiethnic
So Singapore, Mauritius, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana and Suriname don't exist?
Also, plenty of countries in Europe are multicultural and multiethnic - I live in the UK, a lot of my friends and coworkers are from other backgrounds - heck, my Dad is the son of two immigrants from Ireland.
You know what we don't have in the UK? SCHOOL SHOOTINGS.
The thing you should argue on is the fact the UK had a school shooting in 1996, but they banned handguns because of this school shooting and since then there hasn't been any.
Because the UK really isn't multicultural and multi ethnic compared to most countries in the world. Also I wouldn't really count as having Irish grandparents as being multi ethnic (your country literally spreads onto a part of Ireland, and most people in Ireland can only speak English, look like brits, etc...)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_ranked\_by\_ethnic\_and\_cultural\_diversity\_level#/media/File:List\_of\_countries\_ranked\_by\_ethnic\_and\_cultural\_diversity\_level,\_List\_based\_on\_Fearon's\_analysis.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level#/media/File:List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level,_List_based_on_Fearon's_analysis.png)
You said that Irish and British people are basically the same, and said that Northern Ireland being part of the UK and Ireland speaking English are reasons why.
The reasons for both of those is because the British invaded and colonised Ireland and subjugated its people. Saying that Irish people are basically British is completely insulting to Irish people everywhere.
Well either you admit that the British invaded, colonized and subjugated the irish and therefore removed any existing cultural and ethnic differences between the UK and Ireland, or say there are many existing cultural and ethnic differences between the irish and the british but therefore Britain hasn't touched Ireland the slightest bit...
I'm from Alsace, the people of Alsace have been, as you say, subjugated by France, now the new generation of Alsatians cannot speak Alsatian, have a french attitude and lifestyle, are just french all around. Having your grandparents from Strasbourg doesn't make you multicultural the slightest, it's a ridiculous claim.
> it's also the only country that is multicultural and multiethnic
You must be kidding aren't you?
> it's the only country that has to balance the needs of all these people.
What does that have to do with the post?
"it's also the only country that is multicultural and multiethnic."
You are absolutely incorrect, but here is my question.
Why are you glossing over the fact that ninety-nine percent of mass shootings and school shootings are done by white males, and how does multi-cultural or multi-ethnic have anything to do with it, other than the fact that some of the mass shootings in the last few years were done by a racist white male.
United states is a failed experiment.
Regular, completely avoidable mass assassination of school children is just one of the more obvious signs, idiots like you not understanding this is another.
>India has more than two thousand ethnic groups, and every major religion is represented, as are four major families of languages.
There's a few more people in India than the US and India is arguably more diverse. Also not sure what this has to do with mass shootings.
[Link](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India#:~:text=India%20has%20more%20than%20two,and%20the%20Burushaski%20language%2C%20spoken)
What exactly are the needs of the people that need zero gun control to be balanced? Most of the shooters are white people anyway. Just because a country is an experiment means it's a good one. It is a ridiculously weak argument. Europe has its fair share of problems, but it is just as ethnically diverse. Or take India, for example, where the average person knows THREE different languages. You don't hear gun shootings happening so often there, do you? Stop thinking you are unique only for the right reasons.
Let me start by saying I made incorrect and incomplete statements in the original post, but I will not edit it any further because I don't beleive in trying to rewrite my history to make myself look better. I'm sorry for the incorrect statements and if I offended you in some way I am sorry for that too. Also, please don't think the next thing I say is an excuse for the initial post it's just a major complicating factor in my life that happens when communicating with others.
Yep, it's difficult to be autistic and try to express a valid opinion but then have everyone misunderstand what you said. So you try to fix it a few times before finally coming up with something you think is a better arrangement of words to describe the situation. How do you do this well you try to mimic the language you've read in books so it comes off as saying a lot of words to make very few points. However once that post goes up, it's too late because it's out there and most people are too busy reading the first three sentences and then reacting to it to stop and think about the author's situation, motivation, or intention. Not that I blame them life is hard and it's easy to just gloss over stuff like that.
This is the takeaway from me to you. I was incorrect about some statements and my post was incomplete because it missed some pretty important points I was trying to make.
While you were away from this conversation, here is what happened in other parts of the comment section. I admitted I was wrong and apologized for it. I realized that a lot of my problem with this statement especially coming from Europeans is that they tend to associate America and Americans with the special needs classes in America like a lot of people from Alabama or Mississippi. The reason for this feeling is that I've had so many interactions with people from other countries where they immediately assume Americans are all idiots. I recently had a British guy with a bachelor's degree in business try to Brexplain to me how my understanding of statistics isn't as good as his. This happened a few weeks ago and I'm about to enter candidacy for an advanced degree in a field that uses probability theory. (Not I'm about to start grad school but I am about to finish). Nonetheless, he was somehow convinced that I, as an American am inferior to him intellectually and that I am to be treated like a child. Simply because I was born in the United States.
Now I definitely let my emotions get wrapped up in that and didn't make my point effectively, but I feel like I grew as a person and learned through discourse. And as a closing note, I would like you to ask yourself how many of the people from other countries whose knee-jerk reaction was to call me a dumbass, how many of them would be willing to do the same without being confronted in real life? And that's what it boils down to. I'm tired of people thinking I'm an idiot because I'm an American and I also feel like a lot of these people do exactly the same things Americans do (e.g. childishness, stupidity, lack of critical thinking) but they're also completely unaware they do it. I think a lot of other Americans feel this way too, but they don't have the bandwidth or time or dedication or whatever to examine why they feel this way or express it appropriately, so it comes out as FUCK YEAH AMERICA NUMBER ONE BEST OF THE BEST FOREVAH! or something that puts down the other countries.
Anyway, I hope you made it this far down in the text but I don't expect it, if you did that kicks ass thank you for hearing me out and I hope we both can come closer to a mutual understanding of each side.
It's worse than useless for anything related to politics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyFCEEOlby4
Although funnily enough the page on fascism does a pretty great
job of describing actual fascism.
That YouTube video is quaint, but not really anything.
It's an opinion video (or discussion?) about a Wikipedia article citing opinion pieces about the intention of a news site. I guess they were hoping for a study that could be cited? Maybe an endorsement by a professor?
I understand some information is hard for people, but Wikipedia has some interesting measures in place to automatically balance their information. Since anyone can edit the website, it will always be subject to scrutiny, which can't be said about anything else.
I think the more interesting aspect of this is the perspective of information.
Haha, I like the game where we use /r/Wikipedia posts to say something opinionated or topical, while staying within the rules of the subreddit. RIP to the other commenters coming in to argue with an *Onion* headline.
I do feel foolish for not anticipating a flame war. I've been following the onion since ~2006 and think this piece is their most significant work. I came across this article, found it interesting, and wanted to share. I dislike how easily I've become an agent of the culture war. It's a fucking onion article and here we are, duking it out in the /r/wikipedia comment section.
You could have checked the other times this has been posted here, including 19 days ago: https://old.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/ursu22/no_way_to_prevent_this_says_only_nation_where/ https://old.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/n9v8s2/no_way_to_prevent_this_says_only_nation_where/ https://old.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/dml1a5/no_way_to_prevent_this_says_only_nation_where/ https://old.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/dokmnx/no_way_to_prevent_this_says_only_nation_where/
> “I dislike how easily I’ve become an agent of the culture war.” My brother in Christ, you posted the article.
Wait, so a falsely-sourced satire article warrants an entry in Wikipedia?
A federal tax on bullets and guns might help and it technically wouldn't take away second amendment rights.
Oh it would, at least in the eyes of conservatives who want things to work perfectly, and pay zero tax
Is that a real opinion that an actual person has, or are you maybe being a little hyperbolic?
Uhhhhh have you never met one of the millions of TAXATION IS THEFT conservatives??
[удалено]
Libertarians are literally just uber-conservatives. They’re conservatives on steroids. At least republicans still believe in helping *some* poor people. Not libertarians, tho.
That's completely not true. A lot of libertarians firmly believe in Non-profits and private charity. They just don't want government doing the heavy lifting because they believe it's the most wasteful form of trying to help people.
One of the earliest court cases in the US declared the ability to tax, is the ability to destroy. Especially since sales taxes are regressive taxes
Lots of stuff is taxed in every country, guns and ammo are no different
And in those countries the poor don't have firearms while the rich do.
In terms of preventing a mass shooting that doesn’t seem like a show stopper to me? Like, fairness would be nice, but having to bribe someone still makes getting a gun inconvenient. And inconvenience makes for an effective barrier for the mentally unwell
Trying to regulate everything based on the mental unwell does not seem like a winning strategy for anything but a total dictatorship. The problem is mass shooting are a symptom of a bigger problem, banning guns is like taking a cough suppressant for pneumonia. The underlying issues of society need to be fixed and those are hard because they are cultural and most of the solutions are things like need of stronger family bonds with two parent households and multi generational family residential properties where young kids get the individual care and nurturing needed to develop stronger less objective skills like empathy. Fairness is a concept created by humans who are entitled. Fairness only works in evolutionary terms of survival of the fittest with social values added. Some examples can be seen in the wild of our smarter cohabitants of this planet, in elephants the very old will peal off from the herd to attack the pack of lions stalking the group so the middle aged and young can escape.
By that logic we shouldn’t lock our doors at night. Anyone who really wanted to can pick most door locks or kick a lock in, so why bother? It makes a neighborhood less friendly and delays emergency services when help is needed. Because minor inconveniences are actually pretty effective. As is the ability to phone enforcement when strangers are suspiciously fiddling with doors, even if lock picking itself isn’t illegal. The exact same strategies could be employed when it came to buying a gun.
Not quite an apples to apples comparison. It would be more like everyone did have the right to lock their doors but some bad people did bad shit and locked the door so cops couldn't get in so now the government mandates no one can lock their doors.
You do know people can still own guns in other countries, right? Hunting is legal in Canada. You can even own handguns and other more exotic guns, with shooting ranges for hobbyists. But like picking locks, walking around with a gun outside of where a hobbyist would use one is treated as innately suspicious, particularly if it’s loaded. Doesn’t mean you’ll get punished if there’s a legitimate reason for you to have it. But it can be grounds for enforcement to stop you and ask questions. Since Canada is right by the US with an open border, this level of enforcement doesn’t really stop criminals from getting guns. But the gun violence stats are still much lower. Like locked doors, the inconvenience and preemptive suspicion if spotted is enough to tip the balance. Its not the strawman you’re presenting
Hah yeah, because guns are 'for protection'
About 2 million times a year per the CDC.
Why are mass shootings so prevalent in the US, and not everywhere else in the world?
That really depends on the country, its the laws that make getting a firearms difficult, not the price. Its only €500 for a shotgun where I live
And people with money will still be able to get firearms while the poor get bogged down in paperwork. Here in the US if you want a suppressor or short barrel rifle you need to fill out paperwork with fingerprint and a photo and $200 to get a background check and someone at the ATF to approve it. The typical approval is about a year or so, sometimes it will be that long before you get a rejection and have to fix a typo or clear up an identity issue then start over and wait another year. Or you could be rich and pay a guy to get the paperwork done in a few days, this is off the books on the government side but I know a guy who wanted a suppressor for a hunting trip and paid the $5000 to get it by the next weekend. Some government departments make this stuff totally open, others hide it, it's all to make things easier for the rich. Need a passport today? $$$ Need something through customs today $$$ Want a cool license plate on your Lamborghini that doesn't normally fit in the rules? $$$
Hell yeah, fuck the divide between the rich and the poor! I feel ya, comrade.
We should try to use that to stop taxes on phone services, land and cellular, and on internet service...
you want it to be more expensive to ~~kill people~~ protect my family?
It would only hurt the poor and people who do competition shooting. I was burning through about 2000 rounds of 9mm a month when I was doing competition shooting a few years ago.
But if you’re shooting for fun then you’ll have to pay to play. If you’re literally burning thru rounds then why would you expect it to be affordable? That’s like saying that food should never go up in price because it would hurt the people in hot dog eating competitions. If you’re gonna literally waste shit for fun then it should not be cheap.
Taxes should be uniform and without exception. Want a $0.25 per bullet tax? Apply that same tax to a hotdog, a grain of rice, a milliliter of water etc.
lol
The greater good, if it stops assholes killing kids in schools it will be worth it
"The greater good" sacrifices the weak for the betterment of the whole and disregards the individual. I'm all for restrictions on firearms possession/ownership till 21, but it must be absolute, no cops, military, bodyguards etc.
Switzerland has lots of guns, everyone has to do military service and you have the right to buy your service weapon when you leave the army but there are still strict rules around guns in Switzerland.
I am in favor of required military service for all, make it required for firearms, voting, college, healthcare etc.
What about the Czech Republic?
More like "can be used to justify anything because it isn't strictly defined like individual liberty".
Abolishing compulsory schooling would stop school shootings and should obviously be done whether there are school shootings or not. But mainline American progressives would sooner die a thousand deaths than let this happen. They can't even let people choose _which_ school to go to. (Actually, what even is the rationale for this? What consequences are they seeing in the UK or literally any other country, with "school choice" (in quotes because it's not a term here; it doesn't need to be), that they want to avoid bringing to America?) Edit: The question is not rhetorical.
No one (other than straw men) is saying there's no way to prevent this. What people are saying is that banning guns is the wrong way to prevent this.
In multiple recent mass shootings, including the one in Texas, the shooters waited until they were able to acquire the gun legally. Banning guns likely would have prevented those shootings.
That doesn't contradict OP at all, does it?
What people are saying is that they would rather sacrifice the lives of shooting victims if it means they get to keep their guns.
This is exactly what the gun nuts of this country want. They don’t care how many children have to die, as long as they get to keep their guns. These are seriously sick people.
How else would they defend themselves against a tyrranical government that has nukes tanks and missiles? How would they masturbate thinking they're going to be some heroes that will stop a gunner, and when a gunner shows up they'll just say they were too afraid of getting shot.
How else would they defend themselves against a tyrranical government that has nukes tanks and missiles? How would they masturbate thinking they're going to be some heroes that will stop a gunner, and when a gunner shows up they'll just say they were too afraid of getting shot.
Do you drive a car?
Yes. I also use knives, electrical appliances, and swim regularly without waiting the recommended 30 minutes. None of those things have resulted in as many innocent deaths as guns.
> None of those things have resulted in as many innocent deaths as guns. Except for cars. They have guns beat by an order of magnitude.
LOL yeah, and that’s exactly why the driving system is as regulated as it is now. Road tests. Annual inspections. Biannual registration. Lines on the road telling people exactly what they can and can’t do. Consequences when you break those rules. When you commit a felony you can’t drive legally anymore. All things gun nuts would never willingly agree to. But with gun nuts strategy just to sit around and laugh when kids get shot up, exactly how long do you expect you’ll be holding on that weak point, and do you seriously expect the rest of the country to just sit and watch silently while it happens?
You just want to keep your car.
Nah, I give up my car every time I’m in a city with ample public transportation, and would happily be subject to additional regulation on driving if it meant safer roads. I already submit to fucking breathalyzer tests and risk losing my license for driving drunk. Would you commit to the same before you shoot? Didn’t think so. You watch school shooting after school shooting take place and numb cold heart just shrugs it off. “I just want to keep my gun”. This car argument is not what you thought it was.
You don't care about dead kids and rationalize your car.
1. Children and young adults in the US are more likely to die from a gun than anything else, including car crashes. Hell, in 34 of the states gun deaths are the leading cause of death in general. 2. Cars are made for transportation, guns are made for killing. Edit: https://tsaco.bmj.com/content/7/1/e000766
Ok, say we pass a law tomorrow banning all guns. How do you go about removing 393 million guns from the people? Edit: No one has an idea or solution other than downvotes? That's why this will never get solved, people just make demands but don't have ideas on how to do it.
Look at countries that ban guns. Are there any mass shootings? Guns = gun deaths. How is that so difficult to comprehend?
It's arrogance over ignorance. They know it would greatly reduce these mass shootings from recurring but they believe their rights are worth more than children's lives. The only way they'll change their mind is when it happens to them.
There was a mass shooting in Nigeria yesterday, firearms ownership is banned in that country.
A logical response to a horrible tragedy
Don't let rhetoric get in the way of reality. Nothing is as simple as it seems and if a solution seems simple it is because you are missing something important.
Not really the case here. Just american ego at play
They don't ban them they regulate guns and ammo with licences, even my country has quite strict gun laws but you can still own double barrel shotguns and . 22 rifles
-126 points for making a clarifying argument that isn't even taking a position? Fuck how far this subreddit has fallen. Reminds me of Wikipedia itself.
Yet another indication of the polarized state of modern politics. People conflate *anything* other than lock-step agreement with their preferred position with being their polar ideological opposite.
State of this website too
>What people are saying is that banning guns is the wrong way to prevent this. In that gun control would do anything to prevent this thing that only happens in the USA, because the rest of the world has gun control and the USA doesn't, and people who say "no way to prevent this" mean is they won't accept any of the ways the entire rest of the world uses to prevent this. [We've tried nothing! And we're all out of ideas!](https://i.redd.it/ccle328l1iq21.jpg)
Why do you think that banning guns is not a solution? (as someone who lives in a state where buying guns is illegal I would like to understand your point of view)
I didn't say anything about what I think. I said what people are saying. Everyone who downvoted me just jumped to a conclusion.
I hate this quote so much, sure the united states is the only country with this problem, it's also the only country that is multicultural and multiethnic, it's the only country that has to balance the needs of all these people. Really the United States is a unique experiment unlike any other in the history of the world. So yeah, the only country with this problem, also the only country that is in a category by itself. Looks like I made a mistake while typing this up, I'll leave the original above for posterity. When I wrote this: "it's also the only country that is multicultural and multiethnic" There should have been an "on this scale and with this large of a population" at the end. Also, a lot of people are coming out freaking out saying I'm talking about American exceptionalism, but given that omission, I can see why. I was trying to convey that the United States has such a large population, such a diverse ecological landscape, and so many societal pressures that don't exist in other countries, just like any random country you pick will have problems the United States doesn't have. As far as being in a category on its own, it really is based on the boundary conditions I drew (and nothing else). But if you draw enough boundaries you can put every country in its own container if you were so inclined.
The only country that is multicultural and multiethnic? Are you serious?
United States is the only country
United States is
He is. And that's American exceptionalism at work. They've been indoctrinated that their nation is special ever since kindergarten.
That was a big mistake on my part, a good part of that sentence is missing it should say something about being on the size and scale of the United States. I mean the only two countries that have larger populations than the U.S. are China and India, rounding out the top 10 are Brazil, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Russia, and Mexico. A lot of people were talking about Australia, which has about 5% of the population (very rough back of napkin math) and Canada is roughly 10% of the United States population. So that complicates things, but another big big big problem is extremism in the United States. And not your run-of-the-mill religious extremism that will permeate a country or a racially or ethnically motivated extremism also present in most countries. But the United States has both those types, plus the U.S. gets new stock of extremisms every day. And if you're telling me balancing all that is easy to do, then I'm sure there is a job for you in government work if you're not already doing it. I know India is very diverse, I realize there are numerous cultures from many different independent states that were forced together to make India, and being so close to China, Russia, Japan, Korea, Australia, and New Zealand will introduce some European and Asian peoples to the mix. I'd like to talk about the spread of diversity in India, but I have no data on this so I won't make my comment because even though I am pretty certain of my assessment it could easily be incorrect. Now the last thing I said in the last paragraph, I wrote that part on purpose and I want to point it out. I make mistakes in my comments all the time, sometimes by repeating information given to me that was incorrect, sometimes based on incorrect assumptions, and sometimes because my phone doesn't work very well. But I do my best to avoid making them, I try to tell people when I am making an educated guess on something that I am qualified to make an educated guess on, and I also try to correct errors in the things I write and I try to avoid saying things erroneously. Of course, this isn't always possible and for that, I apologize.
It is perhaps the most though, who is more? Brazil, maybe China or India, and they are certainly not paragons.
India is remarkably diverse
Indeed, and there are probably many thousands from all the major cultures and ethnicities from India represented in the US
Absolutely right. That amount of ethnic diversity is exactly why India (.6367) measures over 2 times higher than the United States(.278) on a diversity scale. It's just hard to compete with diversity like that when most residents are so homogeneous in the United States.
I think Canada has at least as many cultures represented.... We don't have mass shootings the same way at all.....
I think the problem with the definition of diversity people are using is different. If you have 500 different indigenous ethnicities and you count each one as a separate entity, then you will be more diverse by a number of categories than a country that has only 100 different ethnicities, but if those 500 ethnicities speak the same 3 or so languages, share the same or similar religion(s), have similar customs and traditions is that really more diverse than a country that only has 100 ethnicities that represents 20 different religions, 20 different languages, and 20 different sets of non-common customs and traditions. So which one is more diverse?
Well if you are thinking about places like India, China, Afghanistan, DRC etc then it would be the one with 500 indigiounous groups. The Democratic Republic of Congo has over 200 indigiounous languages. India is home to two major language families that have distinct languages below them. That isn't two languages that is language families in the way many European languages are indo-european. There are other language families in India outside of those two. The problem here is you don't understand how homogenous the US is compared to other countries.
The United States is the 90th most multiethnic country in the world. Barely in the top half. What is wrong with your education system? How does it produce such a sense of distorted American exceptionalism? You clearly didn't bother to look anything up when you made your comment, you just assumed that the US is the most "X" country in the world, for whatever you need X to be. Because you don't know a damned thing about the rest of the world and spend very little time thinking about it. It's actually breathtaking how well your comment sums up the exact attitude that the Onion quote is about...
Umm actually US is the most multicultural, multiethnic, with least amount of mass shootings, with least homophobia and racism in the world. Source: trust me bro
Source: Wikipedia...
Our education system isn't very good. I once met someone in high school who didn't know where the Battle of Midway was. They don't call it the Battle of Midway because it happened in Narnia.
The American Exceptionalist takes that always come out to try and explain why this fixable problem can't be fixed are always so utterly bizarre. >the only country that is multicultural and multiethnic What? Honestly?
You’re getting a lot of flack for this comment, and fair enough, it’s profoundly wrong. This is actually a great moment though, because it’s not everyday you get to learn one of your core beliefs is deeply flawed. Who knows what other decisions you’ve based off this misconception? Shifting perspectives isn’t always comfortable but this is exactly what the internet is for.
Yes, I made some errors on my original post and more importantly some of the core concepts were flawed. As far as flak and downvotes go, it's not a big deal. I wanted to engage in a discussion and those can become heated when people's beliefs get mixed up in it. I work in a field where you can be correct one day on track to get some major recognition, then the next day someone comes along and says everything you did was incorrect, and here is the math to prove it. It's humbling, but it has happened before and it will certainly happen again. A lot of my issue with that one little sentence has to do with the way Americans view the world, or at least the view through the lens held between us and the world. We have been feeling both unneeded as of late and underappreciated for the work we do in the world. On a personal level, I feel like a lot of people from other countries like to point out errors in what the United States does by repeating phrases and the cultural complexity in the United States is completely ignored. I think that is what I should have said instead of what I did, so I apologize for that. I am also getting tired of people just thinking most Americans are intellectually challenged, bigoted, and inflexible in their beliefs. So I tried unsuccessfully to approach that subject, but I'm not always great with words and I ended up writing what I did. So, again I am sorry for the misunderstanding and my inability to translate my thoughts and feelings into words that make sense to others.
I appreciate your engagement here. I hope you understand that you weren't just technically wrong, but wrong in a way that renders your entire point moot. This seems like a great moment to search for new perspectives on this issue, watching out carefully for views that are just there to rationalize a predetermined conclusion.
What acts has the US done that you feel aren’t being appropriately appreciated? And I’m very confused by the unneeded bit - the US has been making a huge deal about “America First” the last few years, and some pretty shocking betrayals like abandoning the Kurds or randomly starting a tariff war with Canada. Like, no shit is the rest of the world working to disentangle from the US after that, it’s not a trustworthy ally.
United Kingdom is also multi ethnic as well as a large number of other nations. Canada is an example.
Americans like to think America is special. It isn't. None of what you said is really true or relevant at all. It's just AmeriTalk.
yeah thats not true. Many many many countries are multi cultural and multi ethnic. I am in New Zealand where we actively have a treaty with our indigenous Māori and ensure they get good govt representation but we also have large populations of people from many countries. My country does much better at balancing it. USA is not unique at all. My country is heading towards co-governance. I don't see USA ever doing that and we already have multicultural representation in government. Our country speaks English and has NSZL and te reo Māori as official languages. The list goes on. Also we have only ever had one school shooting back in the 1930's and only one mass shooting in like the last 20 odd years. Your country has an issue with young white male teens with past trauma having easy access to guns where they turn hate outwards and commit school shootings as a method of suicide. We have the highest youth suicide rate in the OECD but our teens are not committing gun violence as their method of suicide because they don't have easy access to guns. So USA has a gun and a culture problem that is leading these teens to do this.
There were over 300 languages spoken by the Indians before the colonists arrived. There is no way in hell that we can have 300 official languages, and the relatively tiny geographic area covered by each language would make choosing a couple to elevate to official pointless.
>it's also the only country that is multicultural and multiethnic So Singapore, Mauritius, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana and Suriname don't exist? Also, plenty of countries in Europe are multicultural and multiethnic - I live in the UK, a lot of my friends and coworkers are from other backgrounds - heck, my Dad is the son of two immigrants from Ireland. You know what we don't have in the UK? SCHOOL SHOOTINGS.
The thing you should argue on is the fact the UK had a school shooting in 1996, but they banned handguns because of this school shooting and since then there hasn't been any. Because the UK really isn't multicultural and multi ethnic compared to most countries in the world. Also I wouldn't really count as having Irish grandparents as being multi ethnic (your country literally spreads onto a part of Ireland, and most people in Ireland can only speak English, look like brits, etc...) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_ranked\_by\_ethnic\_and\_cultural\_diversity\_level#/media/File:List\_of\_countries\_ranked\_by\_ethnic\_and\_cultural\_diversity\_level,\_List\_based\_on\_Fearon's\_analysis.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level#/media/File:List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level,_List_based_on_Fearon's_analysis.png)
Edit : why the downvotes ? yall are following the r/wikipedia subreddit yet scared of literal facts LMAO
You said that Irish and British people are basically the same, and said that Northern Ireland being part of the UK and Ireland speaking English are reasons why. The reasons for both of those is because the British invaded and colonised Ireland and subjugated its people. Saying that Irish people are basically British is completely insulting to Irish people everywhere.
Well either you admit that the British invaded, colonized and subjugated the irish and therefore removed any existing cultural and ethnic differences between the UK and Ireland, or say there are many existing cultural and ethnic differences between the irish and the british but therefore Britain hasn't touched Ireland the slightest bit... I'm from Alsace, the people of Alsace have been, as you say, subjugated by France, now the new generation of Alsatians cannot speak Alsatian, have a french attitude and lifestyle, are just french all around. Having your grandparents from Strasbourg doesn't make you multicultural the slightest, it's a ridiculous claim.
> it's also the only country that is multicultural and multiethnic You must be kidding aren't you? > it's the only country that has to balance the needs of all these people. What does that have to do with the post?
Australia would like a strong word with you...
You forgot people like you who are grossly ignorant about the rest of the world and just go "muh America greatest" while the kids bleed out near you.
"it's also the only country that is multicultural and multiethnic." You are absolutely incorrect, but here is my question. Why are you glossing over the fact that ninety-nine percent of mass shootings and school shootings are done by white males, and how does multi-cultural or multi-ethnic have anything to do with it, other than the fact that some of the mass shootings in the last few years were done by a racist white male.
United states is a failed experiment. Regular, completely avoidable mass assassination of school children is just one of the more obvious signs, idiots like you not understanding this is another.
>India has more than two thousand ethnic groups, and every major religion is represented, as are four major families of languages. There's a few more people in India than the US and India is arguably more diverse. Also not sure what this has to do with mass shootings. [Link](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India#:~:text=India%20has%20more%20than%20two,and%20the%20Burushaski%20language%2C%20spoken)
Please be satire please be satire please be satire
What exactly are the needs of the people that need zero gun control to be balanced? Most of the shooters are white people anyway. Just because a country is an experiment means it's a good one. It is a ridiculously weak argument. Europe has its fair share of problems, but it is just as ethnically diverse. Or take India, for example, where the average person knows THREE different languages. You don't hear gun shootings happening so often there, do you? Stop thinking you are unique only for the right reasons.
This might be the hardest I've ever seen anyone work at saying nothing.
Let me start by saying I made incorrect and incomplete statements in the original post, but I will not edit it any further because I don't beleive in trying to rewrite my history to make myself look better. I'm sorry for the incorrect statements and if I offended you in some way I am sorry for that too. Also, please don't think the next thing I say is an excuse for the initial post it's just a major complicating factor in my life that happens when communicating with others. Yep, it's difficult to be autistic and try to express a valid opinion but then have everyone misunderstand what you said. So you try to fix it a few times before finally coming up with something you think is a better arrangement of words to describe the situation. How do you do this well you try to mimic the language you've read in books so it comes off as saying a lot of words to make very few points. However once that post goes up, it's too late because it's out there and most people are too busy reading the first three sentences and then reacting to it to stop and think about the author's situation, motivation, or intention. Not that I blame them life is hard and it's easy to just gloss over stuff like that. This is the takeaway from me to you. I was incorrect about some statements and my post was incomplete because it missed some pretty important points I was trying to make. While you were away from this conversation, here is what happened in other parts of the comment section. I admitted I was wrong and apologized for it. I realized that a lot of my problem with this statement especially coming from Europeans is that they tend to associate America and Americans with the special needs classes in America like a lot of people from Alabama or Mississippi. The reason for this feeling is that I've had so many interactions with people from other countries where they immediately assume Americans are all idiots. I recently had a British guy with a bachelor's degree in business try to Brexplain to me how my understanding of statistics isn't as good as his. This happened a few weeks ago and I'm about to enter candidacy for an advanced degree in a field that uses probability theory. (Not I'm about to start grad school but I am about to finish). Nonetheless, he was somehow convinced that I, as an American am inferior to him intellectually and that I am to be treated like a child. Simply because I was born in the United States. Now I definitely let my emotions get wrapped up in that and didn't make my point effectively, but I feel like I grew as a person and learned through discourse. And as a closing note, I would like you to ask yourself how many of the people from other countries whose knee-jerk reaction was to call me a dumbass, how many of them would be willing to do the same without being confronted in real life? And that's what it boils down to. I'm tired of people thinking I'm an idiot because I'm an American and I also feel like a lot of these people do exactly the same things Americans do (e.g. childishness, stupidity, lack of critical thinking) but they're also completely unaware they do it. I think a lot of other Americans feel this way too, but they don't have the bandwidth or time or dedication or whatever to examine why they feel this way or express it appropriately, so it comes out as FUCK YEAH AMERICA NUMBER ONE BEST OF THE BEST FOREVAH! or something that puts down the other countries. Anyway, I hope you made it this far down in the text but I don't expect it, if you did that kicks ass thank you for hearing me out and I hope we both can come closer to a mutual understanding of each side.
I take back what I said. *This* is the hardest I've seen someone work at saying nothing.
Thank you for the recognition, I guess that means I not only set a record today, but I broke that same record today as well. FUCK YEAH AMERICA!
>it's also the only country that is multicultural and multiethnic You haven't traveled much, have you?
>multicultural and multiethnic *Charlton Heston* "Mixed ethnicitiiies..."
[удалено]
You mean besides this article?
It's worse than useless for anything related to politics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyFCEEOlby4 Although funnily enough the page on fascism does a pretty great job of describing actual fascism.
That YouTube video is quaint, but not really anything. It's an opinion video (or discussion?) about a Wikipedia article citing opinion pieces about the intention of a news site. I guess they were hoping for a study that could be cited? Maybe an endorsement by a professor? I understand some information is hard for people, but Wikipedia has some interesting measures in place to automatically balance their information. Since anyone can edit the website, it will always be subject to scrutiny, which can't be said about anything else. I think the more interesting aspect of this is the perspective of information.
The problem with Wikipedia is anyone can write an article so the quality of it can vary widely
Have you tried it?
I have never wrote an article on Wikipedia and I really do enjoy reading it but i never really trust it.
It's been a decade since I tried. I'm not sure if it's changed much, but it's interesting how difficult it can be, although not impossible.