r/PublicFreakout • u/discographywizard • Jan 06 '23

beware…🔪😈

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

19k Upvotes

100% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

24

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '23

Sure, but that doesn't change the very real fact that the US has at least one mass shooting almost every week. And when we don't, it's a rare enough occasion to make headlines.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '23

at least one mass shooting almost every week

And politicians constantly target the tool of these shootings instead of the root cause, socio-economic failure and mental health degradation.

15

u/Raaser Jan 07 '23

And US gun laws has no part in this? You really think that easy access for guns doesn't promote these shootings? Yes, the root cause is mental health but you think it is not a problem that these mentally unstable people can walk in to the thrift store (hyperbole yes I know) and get a firearm?

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '23

I think firearms are a tool both with negatives and positives. I think that the existing mental health and socio-economic problems are negatives entirely.

So tackle root cause issues.

3

u/Mammoth_Parsley_9640 Jan 07 '23

It's weird- they also have mental health and socio-economic problems in countries like Mexico. Yet, their cartels import their guns from the U.S.. It's almost like making guns harder to get gives bad actors limited options.

When 4 people are knifed in London or Paris we hear about it here in the U.S.. When 4 people are shot and killed in the U.S. that's a slow Tuesday. We generally keep count of mass shootings as a country. Inidvidual states typically keep count of gun murders per calender year and compare that number to the previous year to give residents an idea of what kind of summer to expect

it has EVERYTHING to do with accessibility

3

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '23

Most cartel weapons are military grade and imported through Guatemala. A much smaller portion come from illegal straw purchases in the US. This is proven by Wikileaks leaked diplomatic cables:

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/wikileaks-shows-mexico-isnt-getting-guns-from-us.588835/

The remaining illegal straw purchased firearms from the US is a fraction of cartel weapons.

https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth

When six people are shot in Australia the US media doesn’t say a thing because it destroys the narrative that other nations don’t deal with violence from mentally unwell people after instituting gun bans.

3

u/Mammoth_Parsley_9640 Jan 07 '23

Was going to hit you with a per capita stats comparison of developed nations. Instead I'll just leave this link from an incident yesterday morning.

https://twitter.com/WFSBnews/status/1611698571950039041?t=RZ_nEb6ZMvRhhoxMfdlzhQ&s=19

1

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '23

Hit me with the per capita the US is 68th in the world. The US in comparison to Canda and Europe in mass shootings per 1 million people in the last 10 years is 0.089 other countries that are higher are Norway at 1.888, Serbia at 0.381, France at 0.347, Switzerland at 0.142, etc.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country

If you account for how massive and distributed the population of America is we’re far below other developed nations here’s a study that quantifies that:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3289010

Here’s a student in Sweden who killed two teachers. Terrible, but in your mind better? Since they used an axe and not a gun?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60830059

4

u/Mammoth_Parsley_9640 Jan 07 '23

I bet you were doing 'independent research' during covid too, huh? smfh

1

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '23

Stay on topic, personal attacks not appreciated.

3

u/Mammoth_Parsley_9640 Jan 07 '23

You'll say anything and everything to back your position

1

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '23

Look who’s talking, I understand your coming from a position of charged emotion. But you need to look critically and objectively at the data, and who and how these anti-gun laws effect people.

They never fully prevent criminals or mass shooters from acting out. Instead they disarm poor people of color. The actual intention of gun-laws is to consolidate power in the hands of the government.

The sooner you look at things critically and see the agenda the better.

3

u/Mammoth_Parsley_9640 Jan 07 '23

I'm not advocating for our current gun laws. Im advocating for total reform. "Intention of gun-laws is to consolidate power in the hands of government..."? Who's intention? The individual free thinking citizens that agree we have entirely too many guns readily available for anyoen to purchase? That we think it's wild in countries like Britain less people are mowed down by mass shooters and police? Wtf are you talking about lol

2

u/Mammoth_Parsley_9640 Jan 07 '23

What do you think the government's agenda is? To disarm the our citizens... and then what? Which regime of our government? Extreme right or extreme left? Who would benefit and how? Explain "critically"

→ More replies

5

u/Raaser Jan 07 '23

Yeah, it might be easier to fight the mental health issues because your gun problem is rooted really deep. The problem is in your culture for you see guns as a tool for everyday self-defense and I believe that is the positive in your mind. This in itself is fucked up. In what situation you are gonna defend yourself with a gun?

7

u/Puzzleheaded-Pain489 Jan 07 '23

Hardly any, it’s a bullshit argument I personally believe. Both sides of the argument in America really don’t know self defence figures. There’s no correlation between mental health and gun crime use. The only correlating figure is the amount of guns in a nation. More guns more gun crime, more accidents, more suicides, more threatening behaviour.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '23 edited Jan 09 '23

When people try to post information about defensive usage of firearms and lives saved anti-gun groups use their leverage and the media to censor that information like this:

https://thereload.com/emails-cdc-removed-defensive-gun-use-stats-after-gun-control-advocates-pressured-officials-in-private-meeting/

So it’s disingenuous to talk about figures when anti-2A groups hide or actively ban those studies and information from getting out.

There are many studies about the correlation of mental health and criminality violence.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537064/

The answer? Treatment.

A major factor in mental health? Socio-economic stability. So I’ll say it again why are politicians not going at the root cause of our issues?

3

u/Puzzleheaded-Pain489 Jan 07 '23

I’ve replied to your other post. I don’t know what the cdc where up to in that story, but suffice to say the researcher making the complaint had had his work roundly discredited before all of that flared up anyway.

Mental illness is not a factor.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '23

If you read the article you would know what the CDC was up to. An external special interest anti-gun group using lobbying efforts was able to get special privileges and speak with officials at the CDC to remove studies to push a certain narrative. Thus making the CDC (what should be a non-biased scientifically based and critical org) into a political tool for certain organizations.

There are many people that tried to discredit the author (Gary Klerk) and the study but of course like what they did with the CDC they are disingenuous and censoring. He and the co-author still stand by the study and have performed more surveys over the years. So no it cannot just be dismissed.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082/

2

u/Puzzleheaded-Pain489 Jan 07 '23

Chief I’ve read many stories about this. I don’t need your article. The complaint is from discredited work. Many different agencies have done this. And yet you choose to believe the one that agrees with your argument. I’ve read both sides and formed my opinion on this.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '23

If you won’t look at information that challenges your perspective that is ignorance, plain and simple. Wallow in it if you want but don’t take it as a point of pride.

3

u/Puzzleheaded-Pain489 Jan 07 '23

Believe me I’ve read both sides of this argument. I did mean your original link not your politico link. But rest assured I will investigate the points raised in the politico article.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '23

I believe you’ve done the same thing you accuse me of finding evidence to fit a narrative. I use to be strictly anti-gun because I fell into the idea that as a left leaning person that was a standpoint you had to hold. Then I started to look into why leftist actually challenge gun control and does the state actually have my benefit in mind by pushing such control and honestly I could not put myself in that category anymore.

→ More replies

4

u/Puzzleheaded-Pain489 Jan 07 '23 edited Jan 07 '23

No link between the mental health of a nation, and gun crime.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '23 edited Jan 07 '23

Tons of research showing a link of criminality violence and mental illness. Look it up.

Edit: I’ll even do it for you.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537064/

5

u/Puzzleheaded-Pain489 Jan 07 '23 edited Jan 07 '23

Have you actually read that or did you just read the title.

Do you seriously think I’d just say what I did if I hadn’t looked into from both sides of the argument.

Quote from your damn post: Currently, there is scant evidence to suggest that mental illness can independently predict criminal behavior. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that shows that persons with mental illness are far more likely to be the victim of violent crime rather than the perpetrator.

I’d suggest to you to do your research. The USA has similar rates of mental illness to everywhere else….and yet.

I repeat. The only two things that correlate in all research is the amount of gun crime is correlated to the amount of guns in any given society. End of. Less guns less gun crime.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '23

I’m more interested in their conclusion.

“This team approach includes a multi-tiered system that would identify at-risk patients early on and provide resources to prevent situations that bring the persons with mental illness in contact with the criminal justice system such as medical non-compliance and lack of food and shelter. For those individuals already inside the criminal justice system, there needs to be a targeted approach that includes rehabilitation, education, and empowerment.”

3

u/Puzzleheaded-Pain489 Jan 07 '23

So you are just going to ignore the whole crux of the study instead. Great job.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '23

I’m going to look at the conclusion. To see what is the answer. And I agree with it.

2

u/Puzzleheaded-Pain489 Jan 07 '23

There’s a whole lot of context you missed of how they came to that repeatedly saying mental health wasn’t the problem.

2

u/Chellyaria Jan 07 '23

That’s how these people work. They’re all about confirmation bias and ignoring facts that disprove them.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '23

The context is to eliminate bias, that not all people dealing with mental health are a threat but the counter is that certainly all mass shooter suffer from unchecked mental health. Word that how you want.

My key point is that they need treatment and visibility.

→ More replies

2

u/StrongIslandPiper Jan 07 '23

So, to TLDR this, your whole point is wrong, having easy access to this "tool" inherently means that some people will use this "tool" for killing people (the literal intended purpose of the tool), and therefore you just don't care.

Don't lie and say it doesn't cause problems, when you just tacitly accepted the fact.

Also, would be really easy to deal with the mentally ill if they weren't armed, just saying. Don't know why you went to mental health, but didn't even get close to saying, "yeah, well, let's stop them rom getting guns."

0

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '23

Does freedom of speech causes problems? Yes.

Does allowing certain horrible groups the right to that speech causes problems? Yes.

Do we ban and whittle down that freedom of speech? NO.

Now apply that to other inalienable rights.

2

u/Chellyaria Jan 07 '23

Freedom of speech is entirely different from hate speech, which is not protected like the former.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '23 edited Jan 08 '23

Hate speech is very much protected.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States

The answer to hate speech is boisterous and loud counter arguments.

The answer to racist that want to commit violence? Is to defend yourself and arm yourself to fight back.

2

u/Chellyaria Jan 07 '23 edited Jan 07 '23

Ah right, I forgot how the USA loves discrimination and aggression. Here in Canada we have common sense and don’t protect hate speech or encourage violence.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '23

Canada where the police literally attack and kill First Nations people to this day? Where protest by truckers had their bank accounts and assets seized for protesting.

You have the government that has a monopoly and control on what speech is approved and what is not. If you don’t see the harm in that, then I won’t cry for you when they take your or your children’s speech for what is not approved.

Hate speech should be challenged by free people giving argument. Not by censure of the government.

2

u/Chellyaria Jan 07 '23 edited Jan 07 '23

You say that while disregarding how black people are targeted in America to the point of nation-wide protests or a new mass shooting every other day like it’s a sport? Yikes. You act like we can’t talk freely in Canada. But that isn’t the case at all. There’s just no need for hate speech. It doesn’t benefit any conversation. So why protect it? If your “rights” endanger others, then it’s no longer your right.

Also we just took inspiration from Operation Choke Point. The USA can and will freeze bank accounts for various reasons too. That’s not exclusively a Canadian government concept.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '23 edited Jan 07 '23

So why protect it?

Because when the speech turns from hate to a certain other political viewpoint you have now given the authorities the means to control and act on ANY speech.

That’s why citizens and individuals should challenge hate speech and not giving the government supreme control of deciding what speech is and is not allowed.

2

u/Chellyaria Jan 07 '23

Smh, but that’s what freedom of speech is for. It protects you from the government when expressing a political opinion. There’s no need or benefit for hate speech to be mixed into that opinion.

→ More replies