Police say there’s an active shooter in Lewiston, Maine, and they are investigating multiple scenes
Central Maine Medical Center said staff were “reacting to a mass casualty, mass shooter event” and were coordinating with area hospitals to take in patients.
您正在查看单个对话串。
At least 22 dead and 60 wounded.
To all of you out there who want no gun control. This blood is on your hands. Screw you and your 2nd amendment "rights."
Edit: 18 dead, 13 wounded
Still waiting for the good guy with a gun they keep repeating
EDIT: OK everyone, yes he was the good guy with a gun. Thanks to everyone for pointing this out
Apparently, the shooter was a firearms instructor. Aka, good guy with a gun turned bad guy with a gun.
This crap will never end until the tools they use to kill are off the streets.
Apparently, the shooter was a firearms instructor.
Every gun owner thinks they're a responsible gun owner.
Not my shocked face!!
...Support for Trump, among other politicians. As shown by the video, Card liked tweets from high-profile conservative figures such as Donald Trump Jnr., Tucker Carlson, Dinesh D'Souza. He also engaged with publications from former house speakers Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan, as per the video.
Probably a "Look down the barrel to make sure there is no bullet in there" type.
I think that's the same error in judgement that leads the vast majority of motorists to believe their driving skills are above average. Forgot what it's called.
Which is the key problem. Everyone is a "responsible gun owner" and "good guy with a gun"...... until sometimes they suddenly aren't anymore. At which point your protection is what was person able to keep under normal circumstances aka what they had in their possession on the moment they had a mental snap.
Was it a semi-auto shoot as fast as your finger pulls rifle with potentially hundreds of rounds in quick swap magazines or do they have a manual action hunting rifle or shotgun with fixed magazine, that need to be manually reloaded.
Do they have a pistol with again potentially hundreds of rounds of quick reload ammunition or don't or maybe a target pistol with fixed magazine.
That is why places around the world have magazine and type restrictions, since they exactly know "checking backgrounds isn't fool proof and now amount of background checking helps again sudden newly emerging situation after the checks have been done".
Sure that 5 round moose hunting rifle will absolutely wreck say those 5 people, but one can't exactly run amock shooting around endlessly with moose rifle. Damage limitation. 5 dead people is better situation, than 22 dead people. As cold calculating as that is.
Everyone is a “responsible gun owner” and “good guy with a gun”… until sometimes they suddenly aren’t anymore.
Yeah, and unpopular opinion likely but I think of this similarly to dogs turning on their owners.
And similarly I'd rather have a Yorkshire terrier go crazy on me than a Pitbull.
cough cough Uvalde cough
didn't come because his mother aborted him /s
Yesterday the right said this WAS a good guy. Just let that sink in.
This guy is exactly the kind of person that the GOP considers a "good guy with a gun". He is a mentally ill veteran firearms instructor. Sounds like a boilerplate Trump supporter. Exactly who they want to have more guns.
It's even worse, GOP would want this guy to be an elementary school teacher as a "solution" to the school shootings. Broken, selfish, heartless cowards
Army vet and gun instructor... This was the good guy
There was a study published from data from the last like.. 10 years, I believe, that show that people with guns are more likely to run away, and people WITHOUT guns, are more likely to jump in and try to stop the shooter.
So ya. These good guys with guns are just pussies that never actually use them for good.
Well yeah if they weren't such gigantic cowards they wouldn't buy guns.
Ya. I live in Canada, and I've never felt the need to own a gun. We have a TON of hunting guns here, but I think the fact we don't allow open carry, changes the thought process of gun owners here, and we don't see them as weapons to point at other people. They are more so seen as a tool for a hobby, like a fishing rod is used for fishing.
And honestly, if you avoid Toronto, violence in general is really low. Toronto is just.. special.
And honestly, if you avoid Toronto, violence in general is really low. Toronto is just… special.
Toronto isn't even in the top ten most dangerous...
That might be because people who own guns have had training in how not to get killed.
I'm not sure that saying gun owners should be quicker to shoot people is the right direction.
The real question is, of those ≈35 cases where an armed civilian stopped a shooter, how many did the cops then shoot the "good guy with a gun?" I know it's happened, and I think at least twice.
Also 35/thousands is a rounding error.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
Mass shootings themselves are a rounding number, rounding numbers are what we're discussing. Also helps that they almost always choose gun free zones "for no reason" instead of "gun guaranteed zones." Almost like they don't want armed people shooting at them.
And one or two, but just because the cops make an error, doesn't mean the person was wrong to save all those people. That's also why you're told to put the gun away once you've secured the situation, and you're supposed to give a visual description of the shooter when you call it in. You really think it's better to just let people cause whatever harm they want to than for them to stop the violent attacker? Even if it's just a guy with a knife who can "only kill less people than a guy with a gun," "if it even stops just one" right?
Maybe be the change you want to see in the world instead of bitching, then.
edit: go ahead and keep downvoting me, when the right does finally manage a coup they'll be the only ones with any guns you stupid motherfuckers. For now, the 2nd amendment is your right -- you want to forgo it until they take it away from you (and only you), be my guest.
You alright buddy?
If you check the other thread here, he's clearly not.
He's clearly a troll. Don't feed the trolls, people.
His new flare also says he's banned from the community, so ... mission accomplished?
His profile did say the mods hate him haha. Good riddance.
I'm doing great thanks for asking. You seem kinda angry. Putting down the Internet for the night might be a good idea.
I'm pro-gun but anti-2A precisely because of fuckers like you who insist we can't do anything about this stuff because 2A so we just have to live with mass shootings.
Nope if 2A is standing in the way of sensible regulation, then get rid of it. Then I'll fight for reasonable laws around gun ownership. 2A is the problem.
Bingo, license (no test just who you are where you live like a DL) register (every firearm) and own a fucking tank of you want, I don't care. The biggest issue is you can pretty easily get ahold of one without anyone knowing you have one so the thought someone could get away is much more pervasive.
Not from the US but isn't it like that US Citizens do not have to register their current place of living? If true I think they could get a grip of the gun madness by fixing that problem.
They could couple permission for buying guns and ammo to have the buyer have a registered residency and showing their ID which would be checked against a federal database which logs the amount of guns and ammo bought.
If a buyer is reaching some tresholds they'd have to ask for a permit and give some convincing reasons why they need them. Especially when they want to buy AR's or other heavy weaponry.
When set in effect, every US citizen has to register their current weapons. After a grace period, owning unregistered weapons and getting caught will get the buyer a ban for owning weapons and having to re-apply for permissions after some time. Getting caught multilple times is a perma ban.
Every US citizen should have the right to buy guns and ammo to protect themselves even if they don't have a permanent residency. Those could be allowed to buy a handgun, also logged in the federal DB with their ID or SSN.
Everyone who wants a permit to buy guns needs to complete a training from a state agency.
That long-ass plan for a better world would see the first major roadblock with the refusal to register their residency by at least 50% of the US-population, right? And it could also be that many left leaning, dems or libertarians would give that idea a hard pass.
So yeah...probably every part of this plan collides with the US idea of individual freedom. Take a look at Switzerland maybe.
Basically yes.
That's the idea. Not on ammo though, reloading is better for the environment so let's not impede that.
No. That's a search, you can't do that in the United States.
That's the idea.
That's the idea.
Nope. You have to offer incentives to businesses so they want to make people do it or they won't sell it, then it's a business meeting a business decision not the government imposing it's will. I mean it still is but most people over here are not huge on critical thinking.
Probably, so you incentiveize it. Again then it's people sneaking a couple dollars from the government, not the government imposing it's will.
Not really, people are just dumb and there's a lot of money involved in keeping it controversial. You can literally watch profits of the big ammo manufacturers rise and fall every 4 -8 years they're not going to let that go easily.
Sensible regulations would be rubber bullets for newly minted firearms owners. Keep it empty, but if the day comes that you think about going on a mass shooting spree, you'll probably change your mind when you remember that you'll be loading rubber bullets and have to explain yourself after you've shot someone.
when the right does finally manage a coup they’ll be the only ones with any guns you stupid motherfuckers
Believe it or not, the US military has many guns.
The point here is that civilians aren't going to defeat the US military, full stop. Whether sane people have guns or fascists have guns, only the military matters
Vietnam and Afghanistan would like to have a word with you about that...
Might wanna check the actual combat statistics there bud. Shit Vietnam was also a professional, well-supplied army with a decade of combat experience against the French and massive infrastructure advantages.
This is home turf, not foreign soil that's attempting to be occupied peacefully. Plus, you'd have 50% of a country, give or take, readily willing to turn you in or attack you themselves, and 0 logistics infrastructure.
It's amazing to me this take is still common with people when it's so easily laughed at.
If you wanna go hide in the woods with your buddies, you can do that without trying to overthrow the government.
I was responding to your previous point that a standing military is all that matters against an occupied civilian force. I don't think that really bears up to scrutiny in historical terms.
Also, I don't know where you got off thinking I'm trying to LARP as a militia member, but nice strawman with absolutely zero background to support that conclusion...
I don’t think that really bears up to scrutiny in historical term
Then, frankly, you're wrong.
Also, I don’t know where you got off thinking I’m trying to LARP as a militia member
it was a generalized "you"
Then, frankly, you're wrong.
Cool, but you could have just said that initially without being kind of an asshole.
it was a generalized "you"
Well since you said it to me, how else was I supposed to take that.
Anyways, not mad at you. Was more just making a joke initially, but maybe in bad faith. Which, by the way, I was more than willing to admit.
I think the more important point is that people form militias to protect themselves, and carrying a weapon means considering bad thoughts and being aware of them, the same way that an ex drug user or addict practicing abstinence consistently needs to exert a degree of self discipline.
If you ask me, owning a gun just makes violent assholes have a shorter fuse. Think about it, have you ever carried a stick or a knife and thought that carrying it meant something? Now you can be more assertive, but the risk of accidentally shooting people or just flying off the handle and shooting someone suddenly becomes a real risk.
A great test would be to give recent licensed gun owners three rubber bullets to use. When you get around to firing it after losing your shit you'll know that you really lost your cool.
We absolutely had the military capability to wipe Vietnam and Afghanistan off the goddamn map and delete their populations and wildlife from existence if ordered to do so. The politicians back home said no, and made us withdraw. We have thousands of nuclear reentry vehicles standing ready, and we are trained to set condition 1SQ when ordered, no questions asked, without knowing the target package. I challenge you to survive a hundred Hiroshimas per warhead, times several thousand.
See my other comments below. I'm not looking to have an argument about nuclear war with a nuclear submariner. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail and whatnot.
Military has equally as many progressives, moderates and centrists who absolutely will not tolerate these people. Source: I'm a submariner who works with nuclear weapons. You try something nutty, we can and will put your face into the concrete, no matter your political affiliation. Basics of the Personnel Reliability Program, the Command Managed Equal Opportunity Program, and Nuclear Weapons Security.
Who the heck is paying you to preach this crap? They need a better representative.
Bold words from someone that has the profile description
I am a shitpost in human form: your mom loves me, mods fear me
Seriously, can the mods please ban this person from this sub already....
He's been banned and (most) of the comments removed.
I don't know I'd call anyone stupid when you can't even tell I'm not the person you were originally replying too
So... go buy a gun and shoot him myself? No thanks, voting is my weapon of choice and I use it like a machine gun
So you commit fraud by voting many times really fast?
Not funny
Predicting a failure in background checks here allowing him to get a gun:
Edit
"The weapon believed to have been used in the attack was a sniper rifle with .308 caliber bullets, and it was purchased legally this year, officials said."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lewiston-maine-shooting-robert-card-what-know-rcna122262
"Maine court records show that a man named Robert Card who was born on the same date as the person of interest was charged with speeding in 2001 and 2002. No other criminal records were listed in the state's electronic court records system or in several other public records databases."
But also:
"It added that law enforcement said Card 'recently reported mental health issues to include hearing voices and threats to shoot up the National Guard Base in Saco, ME.'
The bulletin said Card was reported to have been committed to a mental health facility for two weeks this summer and then released. NBC News has not been able to independently verify the bulletin's statements about Card's history."
In previous incidents, people committed to mental health facilities didn't have it turn up on their background check unless it was ordered by a judge. That needs to change.
I'm seeing varying reports that he was also convicted of domestic abuse, but this link shows no such charges.
Anyone hearing voices needs to have their guns immediately seized.
That would violate the 1st amendment right to religion.
As the late great Christopher Hitchens once said (paraphrasing here):
When god hears you that's prayer. When you hear god that's mental illness.
This is a common misconception.
If you talk to the imaginary being in the sky that is sane and you should be able to buy a tank or a machine gun.
If the imaginary being in the sky talks to you, you are a crazy person and should be limited to 6 rifles or less.
Heyoooo.
Good
Yeah, but since no further help will be forthcoming, who will admit to it?
But my dog told me it was OK for me to keep a rifle.
Well if the dog says so how can we disagree? Give him a treat and some pats for me.
Agreed, including all the Evangelical preachers claiming "God spoke to me..."
Not very many people have argued that people who have actually made violent threats and been institutionalized should be buying guns.
The 5th Circuit Court (with at least one judge appointed by Trump) has ruled that removing the guns from a violent domestic abuser violates his rights: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/02/09/guns-domestic-abuse-second-amendment/
This guy was a firearms instructor. Literally a good guy with a gun turned into a bad guy with a gun.
The key point is that he was also recently institutionalized after making threats and SHOULD have had his guns seized, even under existing law.
Agreed, but we haven't been enforcing red flag laws consistently since people start bitching about "mah rites" whenever you try to disarm someone threatening to kill their ex-GF.
The referenced law isn't "red flag laws," those are something else in which simply reporting "my roomate or ex said bad things, proof? No why would I need that, take the guns first due process second, you heard Trump!"
Problem is, people do have rights, and as such before you can violate them you have to actually have a reason, like "them being involuntarily commited for hearing vioces and expressing homicidal ideation."
Red flag laws are written in such a way that your roomate can call them on you because he's mad you ate the last Oreo™, so the cops come and take your right to own guns after a secret hearing you weren't invited to, but it's ok because you will have the almost impossible opportunity to prove "nuh uh" in court 1 year after the date of arbitrary confiscation, unfortunately by then the cops may have already "destroyed" (read: stolen) the property they're now supposed to return so even if you do win that case: Oh well, no punishment for the cops, they can shoot innocent people with impunity, you think they'll get talked to for theft?
Of course that gets pushback, just like any other bad idea Trump supported (albeit from a different group in this case). Most people are however fine with the law we already have that could have prevented this, problem is people need to do their goddamn job and should have taken his shit/input his commital to NICs.
Can you find any precedent of someone getting red-flagged for something as simple as taking the last Oreo? From what I understand, there is a burden of proof on red-flag laws, it usually takes a judge to issue the order to confiscate. Cops are not given unilateral power to disarm someone without any procedure.
I like how you say this...
Problem is, people do have rights, and as such before you can violate them you have to actually have a reason...
...And then immediately say this...
like “them being involuntarily commited for hearing vioces and expressing homicidal ideation.”
Literally, involuntary committing someone is a violation of their rights, but it is an violation that is well established by law. Just like say...taking away someone's guns for a period of time while they are openly threatening people and displaying extreme anti-social behavior
At the moment, they are only a thing in a few states and I'm not sure how often they're used even there. In some states like Florida it does require some proof, but in my state, while the proposed law got close but was not passed, in addition to everything I said above the complaintant was protected from being charged with perjory in the event it was found out they lied in the inital case.
Of course, the complaintant never could have told the judge "he took the last oreo," if that is what you mean, they would be required to lie, but tbh a secret hearing you're not invited to is easy for them to lie at so long as the burden of proof is as low as "he said..."
but it is an violation that is well established by law.
And reasonable. Broadening that to allow anyone who knows you to go to a judge in a secret hearing and say "he bad" with no other proof and bam 1yr without the right to self defense if you ever get it back all because he said she said is "unreasonable." It is also not well established by law considering all the laws are pretty new and all different in every state that has implimented them VS federal law that is reported (well supposed to be, they need to do their job) into NICs since like '96, and also requires a more "standard" burden of proof.
I mean be real, if the red flag laws didn't have a lower burden of proof than involuntary commitment, what would be the point of them existing? We already have IVCs, which have the added bonus of at least some caliber of mental health professional, if the burden of proof is the same the only difference is instead of attempting to actually get the person help all you do is temporarily take their guns ..until they buy more (legally or otherwise), make one, or stab someone, the danger is still there and hasn't been helped at all, with the IVC they show up in the national database instead of the just California database, with the red flag laws the cops show up and leave you alone with the angry, if disarmed, person, with IVCs they are forced into a facility, allowing someone time to escape, or time for the person to cool off with the ativan and doctors. I mean, the only reason for them is "I'm right." The question is "is that good or bad."
I'm firmly on the side of "it's bad, innocent until proven guilty is good."
openly threatening people and displaying extreme anti-social behavior
You mean things that can get you IVC'd? So IVC, red flag laws are often built for abuse, you don't need them unless you intend to abuse it, and if they're not built to abuse they are functionally the same as an IVC just "less good anyway."
People don't get their guns taken away after literally threatening to kill people and getting institutionalized and you are worried about it happening over Oreos? How about we START with the self-identified violent maniacs and then worry about the oreo scenario?
Well, if it is really about enforcing the existing laws to you, then the current laws should be fine even though you agree with me they should be enforced. How about START with the current laws and then worry about the red flag laws?
Most of these laws, and most of the historic gun control in the US, is really intended to be used to keep guns from the "wrong sort" of people, and that means leftists and brown people generally. Crazy white guys were never the target of any prior firearms legislation or enforcement mechanism. That's really the core of the problem here.
What was his ratemyprofessor rating?
Gallows humor really does hit different when your 2 hours into doom scrolling lol
You mean reddit humor?
Gallows humor existed long before Reddit came along. It will be here long after Reddit is forgotten.
Yeah, I just meant it was a lame joke befitting of reddit comedians and their fans.
True, but continuing to vote for representatives who refuse to have any conversation about gun control still makes them complicit in this behavior.
And Republicans will still refuse to do any sort of enforcement law.
Someone once told me, be careful of your thoughts for your thoughts may affect your words, be careful of your words because your words may come to become your actions, be careful of your actions for your actions may reflect on your character.
If you ask me, owning a firearm and making violent threats don't necessarily mean actions, but I agree that there's a definitive correlation. I guess that I still believe that the action itself is the most honest and serious commitment to something a person can express.
I think the fundamental issues with guns is that they SUBSTANTIALLY shorten the time and effort to put thoughts into action. Thinking "man, i want to kill everyone here." is a pretty abstract thought, until you actually have the means to kill everyone there right at hand.
Jupp. And it's so effortless. Try to pull that shit with a knife.
It doesn’t matter. Not what you say or how many people get slaughtered because of their powertripping fantasies.
The last time I argued with these folks, it was on r/Europe I think. Besides the rabid antics their arguments were…interesting? My favourite was „Imagine needing another man to protect your home“. Some time later one of them, a young English man, even became famous. By killing his mother and a couple of others. And of course it was a super incel with a multitude of mental health issues.
The point I’m trying to make is, they don’t care. Or at the very least they are deluded to a point that they don’t see what damage it does.
There are so many guns in the US right now that it's ridiculous. Gun control here would be great... If it were done a hundred years ago. I'm not saying I'm against common sense laws, but like... Pandoras box is open here.
There are 120 firearms for every 100 civilians that live in the U.S. We have 46% of the total worldwide statistic for civilian ownership. The US makes up only a meager 331.9 million out of 7.89 billion people worldwide. That means 4.2% of the world owns 46% of the guns... And those people are all American.
On top of this, some of the most heinous shootings in US history were performed with illegally obtained weapons. Columbine is one of the examples most will recognize.
I'm not leading up to anything here, I just wanted to educate everyone on how fucked we are.
I'm not leading up to anything here, I just wanted to educate everyone on how fucked we are.
Definitely, but your argument is unfortunately what keeps us from ever doing anything about it. Thinking that it can't be done is just not good enough.
Age limits and rubber bullets for veterans would probably help
America has too many guns to ever have gun control. Move to Canada if you want that peace of mind.
People have vices, violence is a vice too
I don't know anyone who picks up a six pack of violence on their way home from work. Just kidding lmao I know what you mean.
I am against gun control laws and this blood is not on my hands.
You may be blind to it, but it's there.
Your past failure to learn from these continued atrocities is your complicity. Your current preference to protect the tools of violence over lives is your complicity. Your future vote to keep the status quo even as history repeats itself is your complicity.
On the contrary. I believe the tools of violence are the only things that will allow us to protect lives.
Gun control has historically been used as a tool to oppress further those who resist oppression. You can see it today, every murder by the police is defended with "they reached for my gun" or "they had a gun". The gun control laws you want will be enforced by the police and they will be enforced selectively against minorities. The atrocities you reference are almost universally committed by right wing straight white men. I can assure you no gun control will stop them from acquiring firearms.
There is an explicit example of this in Israel today. The settlers are allowed and encouraged to possess firearms while the Palestinians are explicitly disallowed.
It's ahistoric to say that gun control will save lives. This country only implemented gun control when indigenous and black people began carrying firearms in self defense. Many black men concealed carried pistols to defend against lynchings which is how we have concealed carry restrictions. Because it became illegal to conceal carry, the lynchings continued. Atrocities continue.
This has gotta be the most informed comment in the entire thread.
While I appreciate your effort to sound informed, you're wrong.
The US is the only developed country in the world with a serious gun violence issue and it's also the only developed country where firearms are flooding the streets.
The US is not more mentally ill than other developed countries. The difference is access to weapons. You can choose to live in denial about that, because you prioritize your weapons over lives, but, like I said, that makes you complicit.
I don't think you read my comment. I didn't mention mental illness. And I explained how access to firearms will not be restricted to those who commit the violence.
I would prefer to live in a country with no guns but that is not the reality we live in. And it will not be the reality no matter how many laws get pressed. They will be selectively enforced by a fascist police force.
In Colorado, there is a magazine capacity limit of 15 rounds. The police choose not to enforce this. You can walk into any gun store and buy a drum magazine holding 150 rounds. In a metropolitan area with probably the most horrific mass shootings. The only time it will ever be a crime is when the police murder a brown person with a magazine holding more than 15 rounds.
I understand you want to live in a safe community and don't want to read news about mass shooters every week. I think you should accept this and act accordingly, don't bring a knife to a gun fight. The people who hold power do not care and laws they would implement would not stop the violence and would disenfranchise vulnerable communities.
I appreciate your honesty and perspective from where you sit. But this is also exactly why things never change and we experienced massacre after massacre. That "it can't be done" attitude. It can be done if you vote for people who want to do something about this. The reality is that, in general, Republicans don't want anything to change, so they will never get my vote. Whenever I can, I vote for candidates who want to press a full repeal of the 2nd amendment. No guns = no gun violence.
If there were to be an actual ban on firearms that starts with the police, I would support it.
Republicans passed the mulford act in California.
Sure, we can start with the police:
What the U.S Can Learn from Countries Where Cops Are Unarmed
Yup, you're right, because millions of people have owned guns legally for hundreds of years, it's their fault and blood is on their hands for this mass shooting.
Your past failure to learn from these continued atrocities is your complicity. Your current preference to protect the tools of violence over lives is your complicity. Your future vote to keep the status quo even as history repeats itself is your complicity.
Yup my failure to learn is my complicity, it's all my fault. You sure know a lot about me. I'm going to need a few to come up with a better reply though, I've been coughing up straw all day.
Guns three hundred years ago were only slightly more dangerous than a guy with a rock and a mean your mama so fat joke. It isn't hundreds of years it's like 150 years.
I'd rather be shot with a modern hollow point today with modern medicine than shot with ball ammo and get the medical care from 300 years ago, but that's just me.
Literally not even remotely relevant to what the conversation was but go off.
I'd also rather get hit with a semi truck today with modern medicine than get run over by a horse and carriage in 1840.
But I don't see what that has to do with the fact that a semi truck traveling at max speed can level a small building vs a carriage just kinda flattening it's own horses on impact.
I don't see what any of this has to do with anything honestly. But go off.
Yes it is literally just you. You are the only person on earth gaming out situations where you have a choice between getting shot 300 years ago or shot today.
I'm feeling warm and tingly inside
You dropped this chief /s
A truck is not designed specifically to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible. Most firearms are. This type of firearm certainly is.
You can't sit in a hotel room in Las Vegas, hundreds of yards from a crowd, and kill 60 people and wound more than 400 with a truck or a knife. Very different tools.
And I really don't care about your gun "pastime" or "rights." I care about getting my kids safely home from school and how having 5-year-olds do active shooter drills. Insanity.
You can't sit in a hotel room in Las Vegas, hundreds of yards from a crowd, and kill 60 people and wound more than 400 with a truck
Car bomb detonated by remote control, IRA style
Did you even read my comment? Try throwing that truck from a hotel room in Vegas and see how many people it kills. It does not do the same job and it's not designed to do the same job.
I don't agree with Helen, but their point stands. The truck did complete the intended action of executing the 84 people all the same. That being said, there are more stop gaps for a reckless driver (bollards are everywhere in the US). Stopping someone with a loaded trigger is a lot harder. I think the France situation was exceptional and not a standard road rage incident/attack. What would need to happen to have a fair assessment is compare the per capita fatality from road rage incidents to armed attacks.
It happened in Berlin at the Breitscheidplatz in 2016 on a christmas fair too where 12 people were murdered by an islamist with a truck. Since these events I feel I've seen a lot more concrete roadblocks capable to stop trucks here in populated areas in european cities.
A couple points.
One: No armed militia is going to stop the US 7bn dollar military apparatus on home territory. Don't bring up Vietnam. Don't bring up Afghanistan. If you think gravy seals navy is anything compared to the Viet Cong you are deluded.
Two: using the France terrorist road vehicle attack as a counter is disingenuous use of stats/numbers. You can't compare a singular attack to the average gun based attacks in the US. What you would do -if you really cared to compare them- is take the average per capita road rage incident or vehicle based murders and compare them to the gun related mass shootings / deaths. You can control for many factors too (time frames, region, age, etc). Something about guns being readily available makes them more likely to be used. We have millions of people driving and only so many intentional terrorist attacks using vehicles.
Yes. The theme is your inability to understand stats. If cars, which are more readily available than guns are able to cause more damage every shooter would go for that but reality is guns are easier. Sure, if they're determined they will find a way, but people tend to go for the easiest path. Deterrents tend to slow the process as studies have shown. That's why looking at stats is so useful for understanding circumstances and deterrents. That's if you really wanted to have an unbiased honest conversation.
Waco is not serving your argument. Firstly, the military was not involved. Second, we're talking 4 ATF agents lost compared to 76 adults. Soooo....I don't see the relevance. The Xbox gravy seals is not going to live up to it's expectations. Shit, is proud boys the best example of the 2a crowd because they look like they can't run a mile either (that's must my opinion though, maybe the photos are deceiving).
I believe the point they are making is that "sure guns are the easiest path until you ban guns, then something else (seemingly cars is suggested) would become the easiest path and therefore would be 'switched to' by those wishing to cause violence, as their violent ideation was not dealt with merely the tool was, so now the tool has changed."
I.e, most people hammer in nails with a hammer becuse it's the easiest path, but if you ban hammers and I need this nail in this wood, I guess I'll use the back of my wrench. Sure, it isn't as good but it'll work just fine. I wouldn't say "oh well nothing can be built, guess I won't build shit," if I'm significantly determined to get that nail in I'll do everything in my power to do so including using tools not exactly meant for the job but that'll work.
One could make the argument that "at least it takes me longer to build the thing," or "you'll be able to build less things," but that is only true assuming I downgrade to a wrench. I could make my own hammer easily, or I could upgrade to a nail gun (in this analogy I guess that'd be a pressure cooker and some nails Boston Marathon style.)
They do not seem to be saying "cars are more effective than guns," imo, though it seems to be taken that way by (possibly you and) others in this thread.
The research shows that deterrents work. The more there are in place, the less likely the acts are going to be committed. That's why gun owners have such a high success rate with suicide. It's much easier. You can all keep insisting that the attackers will switch to the next best thing but if that was the case, every other country in the world would have an equal amount of murder sprees, just committed by cars instead? Reality shows that mass killings in developed countries happen predominantly in the US. Why is that?
Japan has very few firearms however still has a high suicide rate
True. That's why we shouldn't compare US suicidality to cultures that are quite different and use similar cultures for control when evaluating stats. For instance, I wouldn't look at the success rates of building a Starbucks in Mogadishu to long island. They are too different.
I like your thinking
Sure, suicide is easier with guns, but Japan demonstrates quite well that they are hardly a prerequisite. Guns are banned in Japan and so, to the other commenter's point, they find another way to achieve their goals. Guns aren't even statistically the most effective, drinking on train tracks is (or doing fentanyl on the train tracks, hit ya with the 2x.)
You can all keep insisting that the attackers will switch to the next best thing but if that was the case, every other country in the world would have an equal amount of murder sprees, just committed by cars instead?
Sure if you don't account for any other differences between countries like mental health or other social services, or culture, or anything. Unfortunately in reality it is rarely that black and white, there are other differences.
Suicide is definitely faster with guns. I wouldn't call it easier. You can take yourself out quietly, cleanly and peacefully with stuff you can buy over the counter at any pharmacy on the planet.
No, before you ask, I won't post specifics here on how to do it. If you are considering ending your life, please get help. If you are in a country that allows for medical euthanasia, please work with them rather than take your life on your own.
The studies I refer to use local groups for control and not other nations. It is worthwhile looking up the studies.
Absolutely there is more nuance, I was responding to the person that brought up the Paris truck attack. All things combined, the deterrents are what seem to have the most effect.
Sure, but deterrents also have to be effective. Simply banning assault rifles for instance will just transfer it to the already-more-often-used handguns. Background checks are already a thing, unfortunately the Gov won't give gun owners access to NICs for private sales (though they've been begging for decades, and that would help), but the people who pull these shootings are always some shit like this where they should have kept him IVC'd (which federally, legally, disqualifies him from firearms ownership and he should have had them confiscated and the IVC reported to NICs, already all laws people just didn't do their job), or steal the guns from someone, or just are able to squeak through with a clean background. And some things like mental health checks are already a thing with the IVC but tbh I think things like "no guns for people with PTSD" sounds pretty fucked up even if that would help, people with PTSD have rights too.
I agree. I firmly believe something like universal background checks and closing the private sales loophole would be a step in the right direction. Again, these aren't intended to be perfect solutions, they are just meant to slow it down. We can't let perfect be the enemy of progress.
That's cute. Hamas is armed to the teeth and well organized. How's it going for them? It's not even the US military but the IDF. I'd really like to see Derrick put down his Xbox controller and get to it.
Agreed
Yea the military was never involved. So it has nothing to do with my initial point. Buck and Chuck are not taking down the US army. I don't know why we got sidetracked with it.
False. Spain 1936.
WACO negotiations took 53 days, but MOVE was given a day to leave before two bombs were dropped in the middle of rowhouses in Philadelphia 😂 arming yourself to discourage the government works way better when the government is already favorable to your cause.
The military didn't drop bombs on Waco.
That's because the FBI dropped tear gas and then in the confusion, Waco militia accidentally set the entire place on fire.
Show me then, I'm ignorant of the Waco raid.
gas chambers in Germany. That blood is on the hands of gun control supporters.
The "nazi gun control supported the holocaust" argument has been debunked for a very long time. Argument debunk Nazi gun control laws
Frtuermore, gun control supporters of today are not the same as NAZI gun control supporters - who disarmed Jews.
This misinformation disappoints me, but the nature of your comment is overwhelmingly correct.
The tools are not the problem. Indiscriminate murder is incredibly easy and will remain so regardless of what laws you pass.
Horrifying words that ring true. Gun control is in my opinion moot for many reasons. This guy deserved more healthcare.
Your arguments about vans are OK but your fascist talking points tell me you're not worth listening to.
The fucking 1% of Germans who were jewish, who were forcefully disarmed were not going to avoid getting genocided by remaining armed or trying to purchase more arms.
"... It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population." - Alan E. Steinweis, NYT Source
Your arguments so far are that people saying this are obviously biased. If we assume those persecuted could have gained firearms, armed themselves and formed a highly organized militia - all while facing road blocks at each and every turn - do you really think this militia could have kept a genocide from occurring?
This is like saying that cancer isn’t the only way you can die so we should stop trying to cure cancer
It's also like saying cancer is not the only way you can die and pointing to something like syphilis also killing people. Sure they both kill people but one kills way more people and is much less avoidable.
The mass shootings are the symptom of a larger mental health problem. Here in Canada where we have much more gun control we recently memorialized one of our most deadly attacks, The Toronto van attack which killed 11 and wounded 15 (some critically). How is gun control going to help the fact that some people out there want to kill as many lives as possible?
how is gun control going to help the fact that some people out there want to kill as many lives as possible?
By reducing access to a very powerful tool for murder. Here is a comparison of USA and Canadian homicide rates
Are you pointing to a single incident from 5 years ago as evidence that non-gun mass murders are common in Canada? Do you think that when gun control is enacted, all the people that would have committed murder via gun would instead commit as much murder using improvised weapons? If so, can you show any data that bears this out?
Even though other methods of murder can be devised, restricting access to the easiest, fastest method is effective in reducing murder.
Canada also has a health care system where mentally ill folks can get help.
Canada is also less population dense and only has roughly 1/10th of the US population.
Even though other methods of murder can be devised, restricting access to the easiest, fastest method is effective in reducing murder.
The per-capita rate while a useful tool is not going to compare the effects of mass shootings. You're more than likely talking about handguns in this context which are responsible for a lot more deaths overall than AR-style rifles.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
Switzerland has lots of guns but not mass shootings, and has a much lower murder rate. Finland similarly has lots of guns but not mass shootings.
The bigger issue is that half of the US government doesn't want to fund mental health programs, red flag laws, etc. There are some models we could follow other than "ban guns" or "ban assault rifles" ... but dealing with rampant mental health issues would help a lot. It's just a shame the Republicans will parrot "mental health" but then not vote for bills that will actually do anything to improve mental health.
I hate this about lemmy. It looks like youve been banned/deleted/something from the thread. So now all your comments and all replies have disappeared from the conversation.
I think I said this before, but in case I didn’t: I agree that the mental health side of this equation is also critical. That doesn’t change the fact that the gun control side of the equation is a major factor. Also, if you’re going to cherry pick Switzerland stats, then don’t forget to also look at their gun control laws, which are much stronger than the US (and it appears Canada, although I’m less sure there). You seem to want to cherry pick data to show that it’s all mental health and guns aren’t a significant part of the problem. Good luck with that.
I don't think it was me, but the other person who was acting like a jerk... Which is unfortunate.
I suspect we agree on more than we disagree here, I'm just sick of people who "can't vote for Democrats because they want to take my guns."
I also can't dismiss maybe there are some benefits to having a well armed population.
I don't expect to ever hit 0, maybe you do. But, I think we should be able to do much better than several public places shot up by someone who's out of their mind per year. The fastest way towards that to me is effectively universal health care, research, appropriate treatment, and maybe even investment in some new technology/unexplored mitigation strategy.
Ah yes, the epidemic of van killings we all suffer from.
No one claims gun restrictions are going to stop every last murder.
And if folks were killing each other with Vans several times a week, you can bet there would be some Van Control legislation passed in a hot minute.
That's not the point at all. The point is that there are mentally ill people who want to kill and they'll find a way. We've got a record number of people that are seemingly in this category as of late.
In prior decades mass shootings like this were not issues like they are today, the first AR-15s were available in the late 1950s. You can find "mass shootings" going back into the start of the 20th century, but they're not the same mass shootings we're seeing today. They're much more targeted violence.
Now... It's "I'm going to kill you because you're at Walmart(?)"
Keep in mind the US has roughly 10x the population. If we want to do an apples oranges comparison of the two countries ... that's potentially 10 van incidents in the US in place of mass shootings.
But that's not a fair comparison either because Canada has an accessible health care system.
If your argument is we need to address mental health, I'm not going to argue with you there. But guess which party in the US is described by all four of these bullet points:
While they are refusing to budge on either of the two middle bullet points, people are just dying.
So I have little sympathy for folks who defend guns with the premise that mental health is the real problem. Fine, let's say it is, doesn't matter because you are preventing us as a nation from addressing either of those issues.
I have voted a pretty much straight blue ticket in all elections since 2016. I also have friends that guns are a very important issue for though, and I don't think the Democratic party is getting anywhere being the "party out to get the guns."
It's not really the same... There are people that like guns for a variety of reasons and 99% of them will never take a life. Their only reason for existing isn't to go on a murderous rampage.
This was the example where I just said "you know what, banning guns isn't going to fix it"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kongsberg_attack
Another person replied about an attack with a van in Canada.
I think we genuinely need to treat this as a mental health crisis, but like for real. Not the Republican "thoughts and prayers" mental health crisis, but a real thought out use of resources to figure out why so regularly we have people in our society that want to kill a bunch of random people.
We should also do more background checks and close loopholes, even though that wouldn't have helped here.
It would have helped here. This guy was previously committed for mental health issues. That should have required him to give his guns to a friend or whoever for safe keeping.
Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that detail when the comment was written last night.
So according to you just because we haven't figured out how to stop it we should just throw in the towel, right?
Gtfo with your fatalism.
I'm guessing you think that mental illness is the root cause and also that you don't think a dime should go towards a universal healthcare plan that includes caring for the mentally ill.
Actually you are the one work the false equivalency.
You know why your comparison is idiotic? Because it is comparing a mountain (gun violence) to a mole hill (vehicular homicide). If what you said was at all accurate, people would be using those methods significantly more often in other developed countries. Guess what? They don't. They are used at basically the same rates as here in the US. The major difference is that those countries have much guns per capita.
So again stop pretending like the comparison is even close to a good one or that you have some sort of gotcha.
For mental health? Most of them are not much better. Try again.
Japan and South Korea, for instances, are certainly not known for their great mental health. Guess what they don't have? No constant mass shootings, no trucks being used to mow people down, no constant fertilizer bombs.
Considering the same group of people who fights gun control legislation tooth and nail is also very much responsible for the lack of mental health services (and general sorry state of health care) in our country, it sounds to me like you don't really want to solve the gun problem nor the mental health problem you predictably deflect to.
And yes, I'm assuming you are a Republican. If you aren't, try not acting like one and folks won't make that mistake.
R won't support restrictions on gun ownership because they say the problem is mental health, but they won't support spending on mental health either. (Most likely because they seem to oppose anything that would actually help people who suffer.)
Reagan undercuts funding on mental health, resulting in the closure of mental health institutions nationwide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MentalHealthSystemsActof1980
https://sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html
This last one is a ddg search - you can just pick which article you want to read about Republicans voting against mental health funding.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=republicans+vote+against+mental+health+funding
Kinda like how you singularly invented the rhetoric that it's useless to discuss gun control because it wouldn't solve 100.00% of possible killings?
It's literally not what you said, but you're clearly not out here in good faith, so enjoy the shit flinging.
Maybe you should read my comments instead for a change but it's fine, I accept your concession
The root cause of people doing mass shootings isn't guns, okay.
Do you think shooting up a public place is the action of a sane, rational individual?
Many mass shooters do not suffer from a mental illness, and mental illness is not a major factor for those that do.
https://www.columbiapsychiatry.org/news/mass-shootings-and-mental-illness
You can just say "yes" and be wrong, no need to go cherry picking for the one article that supports your warped view
I happen to think that killing masses of people isn't a sane decision, but you do you champ
Sad
If I cut my hand I use a bandaid. Guess you just bleed?
There is no single cause or single solution. Calling for one is too say the problem is unsolvable. Gun control is part of the solution if not all of it.
No, you're absolutely right. As soon as we repeal the 2nd, outlaw and confiscate all the guns, all shootings will immediately stop and never ever happen again. It's simple really.
This Australian study to argues that’s the case for mass shootings, yes.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26822013/
There’s also https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JCRPP-05-2015-0013/full/html
Which suggests that the US already had measures with that effect until 2004.
There is no single cause or single solution. Calling for one is too say the problem is unsolvable. Gun control is part of the solution if not all of it.
So we're comparing mass shootings to small cuts, now. Here I thought you considered them a big issue?
Or do you slap a bandaid on giant lacerations, too?
I was... Stretching your analogy. Nevermind. 🙄
And I extended yours. Slapping a bandaid on a much larger issue really doesn't solve the giant fucking issue. Better luck next time!
There is no single cause or single solution. Calling for one is too say the problem is unsolvable. Gun control is part of the solution if not all of it.
Here's some 🧀 with your whine.
Lookit you trying to be clever, how precious. Did you steal that from your schoolmates?
🧀🧀🧀
I'll take that as a yes. Ought to go run along and play, this discussion seems a bit adult for you.
What a stupid fucking argument. Gun violence is a sheer numbers game. The ease of access and use of firearms is a massive problem, and when you combine that with the serious socio-economic/political problems in this country that is how you end up with this on-going violence.
Yeah, there are other ways for people to commit violence such as the examples you provided, but they aren't used at the same scale or with the same frequency. Why? Well, partly because building a bomb is a lot more complicated than buying a gun. Does it still happen? Yes, but again with FAR less frequency.
Your argument that because there are other ways to commit violence that we should not do anything to combat gun violence is just so tired and misguided. We should do something where we can to combat problems that we know how to deal with. It isn't a fucking mystery how you limit gun violence. You need to limit the number of guns.
Look at smoking as an example. Everyone knows that smoking causes cancer now. There are still people who choose to smoke, but it has become much less prominent thanks to social enforcement of not smoking in public places among other things. It took a generation, but millions of lives have been saved thanks to the slow roll of common sense limitations and restrictions on tobacco products.
Quit using these fallacious arguments, and just say what you really mean:
"I don't personally care about people who die to gun violence because my personal desire to continue owning guns supercedes the need for any common sense gun reforms."
What gun control would stop this? 95% of our violence via guns is from handguns. 85+% is drug and gang related, 2/3rds is suicides. Shootings like this are a rounding error in the 40k a year deaths, and when compared to the police killing 1k~ a year (yes 1 in 40 of those 40k is from the police) shootings like this aren't an issue. They just get views because they cause more carnage. An AWB and background checks won't stop this. Our society is breaking down and it's not the firearms that are the root cause.
shootings like this aren’t an issue.
And yet they happen in the U.S. far more than any other Western country. Which sounds like an issue.
Stop putting words into my mouth.
First of all, make me.
Second of all, I only put the words there that you were too disingenuous to utter yourself because you would rather use fallacious arguments than to own your position outright.
argue against the ones I'm actually saying you stupid shit.
I did that too, but you didn't want to engage with that. I think that says a lot about the quality (or lack there of) in your arguments.
Do you think shooting up a public place is the action of a rational, sane individual?
No.
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, this country's healthcare system, especially it's mental healthcare, could maybe use some improvement?
Yes.
Do you think that the rights of innocent, sane individuals should be violated just because someone else unrelated to them committed a crime?
This is a bad argument. I never said "ban guns" because I know that is never going to happen in this country. However, I am also aware there are other ways to combat the problem like mandatory registration, increasing the age to buy firearms, better red flag laws, and many other enforcement options.
I'm sorry you don't like the truth, but the truth is that our existing regulations would work just fine if we actually had a functioning healthcare system that could, I dunno, maybe help these people before they go off the deep end. Crazy, I know.
Two things can need improvement at the same time. We can have better gun laws, and better healthcare. They are not mutually exclusive. Only knuckle-dragging half-wits think these problems aren't interrelated, and therefore a multi-pronged approach to solving them would obviously be necessary.
Then again, maybe you'd prefer another Oklahoma City instead.
More fallacious argumentation from you. What a surprise. This doesn't even justify engaging with.
These are really great ideas. If only we had manditory registration, a high age restriction for guns (why not 35? That's the same age you have to be president right?), and really strong red flag laws (seems like we need to take the guns from people in the military, they don't seem to be fit to have guns), there's a chance this shooting wouldn't have happened.
Ah, so now you claim to read minds. Ok. Not reading the rest of this drivel, it's clear you're not really up to this. Better luck next time, champ!
Sane yes
Rational no
You just want these shooters to be mentally ill so they're one of the lesser people. It's sad.
If those were just as deadly and easy, people would be using them. A fertilizer bomb can easily kill the person making it and the spread of a truck is significantly slower and more obvious than a bullet.
You are correct that there are multiple ways to kill people. But the other methods are not as likely to kill and are harder to operate effectively. There is no comparison so stop acting like there is one.
Yeah. I once had a hot brass land on my neck. It was just like getting shot!
And people die from getting tangled in their bedsheets. What's your point, Rambo?
Taking the cowards way out. Typical.
Are you this dumb? Seriously? If you intent is to kill someone, it is significantly easier to do with a gun than with a fucking truck. If you miss with a truck, you think you can just ask the people to wait a bit while you back up and try to hit them again? How many hours do you think you can get in with one truck vs with one gun? You miss with a gun, it is easy to fire again.
As for a fertilizer bomb, it is not like the Anarchist Cookbook makes it out to be. Lots of people die while making explosives. Many die trying to set them off. How many people die purchasing a gun? How many people die using a gun compared to the number of bullets expended from guns. Going to guess the death ratio is a hell of a lot lower than fertilizer bombs.
You know that nobody has ever claimed it's the only way a nutjob would kill people
But for whatever reason, it's vastly more common to murder.people with a gun than with a truck or fertilizer bomb.
Coincidentally trucks are licensed, registered, and highly regulated. And while I'm sure you can get around it, the sale of ingredients that can be used in bombs are generally tracked/regulated as well.
Nice dodge there.
Hey that's my line.
I think the point you seemed to have missed is that building a fertilizer bomb is not as simple as obtaining a gun in many places in the US. There are no specific fertilizer bomb stores. There are no fertilizer bomb “shows”. They cannot be reused, you would have to build a new one every time…unlike a gun. They are illegal everywhere because they are bombs, and and every time you make a new one, you risk blowing yourself up first…which is a great feature!
Running a truck into a crowd, I mean sure, but I doubt you’d take out, say, 20 (just going off of what the current number of dead is in Maine), or 60 (Las Vegas) people. The Boston bombing “only” killed 3 people, so yeah sure I guess I’d prefer a relatively few people to take the time to make one and, assuming they didn’t fuck up, sure, I guess some innocent people could die here and there. It would suck, but I like trying to minimize easily preventable deaths. People escape from prison, too, but most don’t, and so we don’t just throw our hands up and say “oh well, guess we won’t investigate” every time that happens.
And I guess you could run a truck into an elementary school classroom somehow and manage to mow down 19 kids, but I really doubt it. I don’t have anything to compare that to, unlike…well yeah there’s been a lot of those in schools to look at over the past 20 or so years, so pick one.
It’s interesting that you bring up McVeigh, not too long ago I finished the book “Homegrown, Timothy McVeigh and the Rise of Right-Wing Extremism” by Jeffrey Toobin. It’s fantastic, highly recommend.
While he did have numerous weapons, his major beef was with the federal government, and it took him years to become as radicalized as he did. There were also other factors, like him failing out of a military special forces class, so he went awhile between jobs and sleeping at friends’ places just to make ends meet. And he was upset over Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Eventually he was able to convince Terry Nichols to help him, but quite a few told him to get lost before Nichols agreed. But he definitely already had plenty of guns if he had wanted to do something before OKC (spoiler alert, he is a “person of interest” in at least one, an infant), but he didn’t. He wanted to make a statement. And we haven’t seen anything on that scale other than 9/11 and maybe Boston (if you count straight up terrorism). So yeah, let’s do it. Seems like we already have people who want to make enough of a statement that they make bombs and kill people, in addition to all of the guns in this country.
I’d be cool with making at least one of those options much less accessible.
I'm genuinely sorry that you're so stupid and afraid. Having poor education, no good role models and lack of support from friends and family is a pretty devastating combination. Maybe as you get older you'll grow out of being the way you are.
Ah right, the hundreds of fertilizer bomb attacks we have every year.
As if it wouldn't become a lot harder to buy fertilizer in days if that were the case.
(No I didn't miss the McVeigh reference, I just found it to be a ridiculous false equivalence.)
And if folks were running into crowds with trucks twice a week, we'd see some new restrictions there also.
Remind me the last time that happened
Wow you had to go all the way back to the 90s for an example of a fertilizer bomb, but for guns we don't even need to go back to dinner.
The number of guns per capita was significantly lower in previous decades.
Mass shootings have been a problem for a long time in the US, long before the 90s
You're in denial. Stop being in denial. Seriously.
There's a reason why you can't buy bombs in the bomb store. These things are professionally designed to explode and kill as many people as possible.
Yet, you can go and buy an AR-15 or worse in a gun store. A weapon professionally designed to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible.
This is an almost entirely American problem. It's not like the US is more mentally ill than every other developed country in the world. What distinguishes the US is the easy access to weapons. Take the tools of these killings away.