• agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Between active and reservists there are well over one million national guard memebers. The crimes of one of them hardly imply that the regulation is not good. Mistakes are possible, and considering he was let out of the psych hospital is it impossible to think the mistake even could have come from the profit driven org who makes the absolute thinniest proft margins from mental health care? What about the police, did they not also drop the ball, they could have seen this coming, this person was known publicly for his gun lust and extremism. Or is all the blame only on the one orginazation that makes your opinions the most correct looking?

    • SomeDude@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Mistakes are possible

      Yeah, mistakes like american gun laws. In related news, this year, a soldier from Germany’s National Guard did not go on a killing spree. Nor did a soldier of the French National Guard.

      IT IS THE GODDAMN FUCKING GUNS

      • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        A French cop went on a mass shooting in 2017. In 2020 an ex soldier in france went on a shooting. Sure it wasn’t this year but acting like this doesn’t happen elsewhere is wild. In fact the chances that the shooter is in a well regulated legal organization are higher elsewhere since the other people dont even have guns like that. So I assume Frances gun laws are a problem for you too since they cant stop their Law Enforcement from doing this?

          • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The comment you replied to it literally proof that this incident would still and does still happen in France. This whole time I’ve specifically been speaking about those that would be considered to be in a well regulated militia because that phrase is meaningless, as shown. French gun laws wouldn’t stop this, the only country argument is moot here, because we’re literally not the only country whos LEOs and military go on rampages.

            • samus12345@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              ‘No Way to Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

              Note bolded text. No shit this happens in other countries - the death stats for them aren’t 0. But it’s a rare anomaly there rather than just another Tuesday like here.

              • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Whens the last time a US military service member went on a shooting spree, adjust per capita, then compare. Yall are doing everything to try and derail my original point about militias.

            • black0ut@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              the fact that you have to go to other years proves that this happens way more rarely in France than in the USA. In fact, you can see that in all of the graphs there are gun related deaths in every country.

              The point is that it happens 100 times more in the USA than in any other developed country

              • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                And my point remains, when it comes to service members and LEOs, even Frances gun laws wouldnt stop this case. In fact, take the number of Cop and Military shooters, adjust per capita then compare the stats, because yall keep trying to derail my points about the well regulated militia stuff.

                The point is that it happens 100 times more in the USA than in any other developed country

                well since it happend twice in 3 years in france im assuming you have data for 70 yearly US LEO or Military member committed mass shooting yeah? Or are you gonna keep veering away from what ive actually been arguing this whole time again?

    • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is plenty of blame to go around, the problem is systemic. Putting the blame on one institution makes it a scapegoat, we need publicly funded mental health care as much as we need gun control.

      • SomeDude@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        we need publicly funded mental health care as much as we need gun control.

        While the US definitely needs publicly funded (mental) health care, it will not address the gun issue. It doesn’t matter if a country has public health care or not, what matters for gun related deaths is either a) number of (civil) guns or b) (civil) war.

        Do not give into gun nuts in this regard. Do not agree that the US needs both. The US needs exactly and only one thing when it comes to gun deaths: Fewer guns.

        • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nah fam, we need both. Fewer guns, even destorying every AR15 in America wouldn’t solve the #1 cause of gun deaths in America, which is suicide.

          • thatsTheCatch@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Removing guns (or at least access to them) can actually reduce the rate of suicide. Guns are quick and easy to use to commit suicide, whereas many other methods take time to set up and don’t work as often. When someone is feeling suicidal, often having that little bit of extra time can let the feeling decrease enough to prevent an attempt.

            Of course, removing access to guns doesn’t fix why people feel suicidal in the first place. That is a whole nother can of worms. But I expect everyone agrees that reducing the number of suicides is good.

            RAND: How Gun Policies Affect Suicide

            The consensus among public health experts is that there is strong evidence that reducing firearm suicides in contexts where more-lethal means of attempting suicide are unavailable will result in reductions in the total suicide rate (see, for example, Office of the Surgeon General and National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention, 2012; World Health Organization, 2014; for review, see Azrael and Miller, 2016).

            Save.org: Restricting access to lethal means:

            Research has shown time and again that restricting access to lethal means or “means restriction” can saves lives. By restricting access to firearms and other highly lethal methods the decline in suicide rates by that method and overall suicide rates begin to decline. Restricting access to lethal means does not always lead to fewer deaths, but is one suicide prevention measure that merits further research and more individual-level intervention training to make lethal means less readily available.

            • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Japan would like a word (but they’re too busy killing themselves without guns.)

              Guns may be more effective but I’d argue OTC meds are “easier” considering you don’t get NICs checked for tylenol. And frankly many suicidal people (not all ofc) already have a problem with a particular drug that causes 96,000+ accidental deaths/yr, shooting of another nature, which kills 36,000 more people than guns/yr including suicide, that could also be used quite easily and peacefully as opposed to doing your best impression of Dead from Meyhem.

              Simply banning guns wouldn’t help, we still need to address the root causes. And once we address the root causes gun control will be a whole lot less necessary anyway. At the very least, we should start with the things that will be actually helpful and then move to the pointless bans which worked so well for those drugs 96,000 people OD on each year.

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

          You sound like the people who advocated for the war on drugs…

          I would piss my pants laughing in an alternate universe where we did ban all guns and there was a whole legalize it movement.

          Prohibition is hardly ever a great answer.

          • SomeDude@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            …I’m probably one of the leading drug legalization figures in my state.

            But I’m also not an idiot who fetishizes weapons. You’re probably one of those weirdos who sleep with their gun.

            Oh, and to help your tiny brain a bit: My drugs cannot kill you over a distance of 500 meters at a speed close to or faster than the speed of sound.

            Additionally, countless of generations of humans have lived without any firearms at all. Even giant pussies like you are going to be fine.