Hiku said:
sc94597 said:
There is estimated to be about 400-600 million guns in the U.S. The majority of them are probably semi-automatic weapons at this point. That is a gun to person ratio of between 1.2 and 1.8. Controlling the supply of guns is just not logistically possible at this point. It would be easier to: - Work on reducing wealth-inequality and eliminate homelessness and poverty.
- Pay to have a school psychiatrist evaluate every student and have free-at-the-point of use mental healthcare for everyone in primary and secondary school (at least, ideally for everyone.)
- Reconstruct social clubs that allow people to form physical connections beyond their family and in which a person is more likely to be de-radicalized or re-adjusted to society. Historically local churches did this, but the U.S population is secularizing. Right now the problem is that young people in the U.S experience what Durkheim called Anomie. This is either because rules are too rigid and alienate them or because there is no normative structure at all.
- Reconstruct the education systems so that students don't feel alienated. See: Ferrer movement and Francisco Ferrer as an ideal model.
- Decriminalize all drugs and other non-violent "crimes."
- Aggressively dox and put maximal social pressure on fascists and other hyper-nationalists.
- #6 but for Incels and other radical misogynists.
Introducing every point on this list would be easier (and likely have a greater effect on shootings) than reducing the supply of guns in the U.S. Solving these problems would also solve many other social problems in the U.S as well. |
I just want to point out that this is very unlikely to be inherently tied to just the amount of guns in USA.
Because if we compare USA's 1.2 gun ratio to any other developed nation, let's say England's 0.46 ratio, you'll quickly see that this isn't even comparable by statistics. It's just not a frequent problem elsewhere. 
(FYI, the image is showing school shootings between 2009 - 2018)
School shootings in the US compared with the rest of the world - CNN There is obviously a correlation between more guns and more gun deaths.
But the main difference between USA and many other developed nations on this list to me is gun accessibility and gun culture. It's not just a coincidence that so many Americans decide to take to guns when they want to hurt people. Or that so few do that in countries where there are many guns in circulation, but the guns are also primarily out of sight, out of mind. In USA, guns are very normalized. They're brought into the mainstream, and people consider them a right. They're taught how important they were hundreds of years ago when the 2nd amendment was written, but the most powerful guns at the time were muskets that required 20 seconds to reload each bullet. The 2nd amendment did not foresee the kind of powerful weapons we have today. But I digress. As an outsider, I was stunned at seeing literal war/army commercials during Superbowl, looking like Call of Duty trailers. Because I've lived in countries where I've never even seen a gun, they not only don't come to mind when I get pissed, but I wouldn't even know how or where to get one.
The gun used in the Sandy Hook massacre costs 32 000 on the Australian black market. It costs a measly 200 USD with home delivery shipping straight to your door in the US. The difference here is already apparent.
If they don't have 32K, that can deter a would-be shooter. And even if they do have that amount of money, they risk getting set up by a cop pretending to be a black market arms dealer, etc. Because that is part of the process of getting rid of guns, which I'll get into below. Other countries have figured out gun accessibility. I don't imagine this shooter would have been able to obtain the two AR-15's he purchased legally from Daniel Defense, if they used Japan's system for example.
(And not to go off on a tangent, but no one needs an AR-15 for defense.) "Friends and relatives have said that Ramos was bullied, cut his own face, fired a BB gun at random people and egged cars in the years leading up to the deadly attack."
Regarding getting rid of guns in the country, it would be a long process, and no country is fully free from them. But the first step would be sensible gun laws.
Which politicians constantly refuse to enact, because gun lobbyists pay them millions.
Ban the more dangerous weapons (unless you need them for hunting or something and can prove it, etc), which will relegate them to the black market, which absolutely can deter would-be shooters.
Now when it comes to cars/knives etc, I'll take my chances against a car or a knife any day over a gun, outside of some very specific scenarios.
And if you want to murder a specific group of people, such as classmates, it's all the more difficult to accomplish the same results with a car or a knife.
| 
