383
Biden renews call for assault weapons ban after ‘tragic and senseless’ spate of July 4 shootings
(www.independent.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
383 points (93.0% liked)
politics
19097 readers
4517 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Things like suicide are far more related to a lack mental healthcare and the stigma around getting help than weather or not people are allowed to own firearms. Not everyone has those kinds of problems. An assault weapons ban is certainly unrelated to those seeking self-harm and most crime.
Look at suicide rates in England when they switched from coal gas to natural gas. “Sticking your head in the oven” was an incredibly accessible and effective way to kill yourself.
When coal gas was taken away, all suicides dropped.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/saves-lives/
Since gas ovens are still commonplace around the world and not a major suicide device, maybe were just looking at simple correlation specific to a time and place. Just like school shootings in the US are a terrible trend, suicide by oven may have been a terrible trend in England. I don't disagree that the net effect of removing the popular tool can be significant, I definitely question if a similar result can be relied upon. Removing the gas may have just been a wake up or societal redirect that happily resulted in fewer suicides.
Coal gas, as in “artificial gas” (as opposed to natural gas) is no longer used in residential environments basically anywhere. It’s literally 50% carbon monoxide and much more toxic than natural gas which is what modern ovens use.
It is impossible to kill yourself with coal gas if you don’t have access to it. People can and do still kill themselves with carbon monoxide by leaving their cars on in a closed space, but that takes more time and effort and people have time to contemplate their decision and change their mind. This is a good thing.
Also, I’m not sure I understand your point about it being a trend. The data shows that total suicides dropped, not just suicide by oven.
Not sure which part of "if you don't have access to a gun, then you literally can not shoot yourself" isn't connecting in your mind, but it is interesting to me that it's almost like people subconsciously fight themselves to avoid arriving there.
What came first, the chicken or the egg? Meaningless semantics; both are at play when it comes to someone that is suicidal. But I can assure you, suicide rates would be positively (downward trend) impacted by any sort of gun ban. I am speaking as person who has been suicidal. If I had had access to guns at certain points in my past, I likely wouldn't be here today.
Glad you’re here, and I’m glad you’re in a better place. Take good care of yourself.
Thank you. :)
K, not everyone has those kinds of problems and a ban would prevent everyone from owning a gun. That would be a bit like banning booze or cars because some people are drunk drivers.
Banning guns won't get anyone any treatment which seems vastly more important than prevent one kind of means some people may or may not seek out on their own.
why are you framing the conversation as if folks are deciding between better mental healthcare or getting rid of guns, when the conversation is about getting rid of guns or not getting rid of guns
are you misrepresenting what the conversation is actually about for a specific reason?
If you think there's any real conversation around "getting rid of guns" you are simply engaging in fantasy.
There will be no "getting rid of guns" in any of our lifetimes in the USA. Our rights to bear arms are practically set in stone with multiple SC precedents confirming the individual right that the Constitution gives us, and recent additional precedents show the sitting court interprets the legality of limiting those rights as an extremely narrow thing.
Even if all the above were not the case, the simple logistics of the matter are that we have 400 million guns in private hands, mostly unregistered, distributed across the USA. People will simply keep them no matter what you or the government tells them.
its true, never in the history of any nation has illegalising something made that thing less common
your disagreeing with the practicality of getting rid of guns does not, in fact, change the current conversation from being about how the usa should obviously get rid of guns, regardless of how difficult you lot will continue to make it 'in any of our lifetime'
That's kind of a generic reply that doesn't address the point that making them illegal is most likely impossible.
a generic reply that barely addresses any point was pretty appropriate for a generic statement that barely qualifies as having one to address, i felt like
it turns out 'the simple logistics of the matter' are that guns do not appear in the hands of criminals magically, rather the USA imports and manufactures ridiculous amounts of new killing machines for them entirely legally, making sure that getting your hands on one illegally remains as easy as absolutely possible
it turns out schoolkids and teenagers do not in fact get their military weaponry from their extensive mob/maffia/cartel ties, they take daddys entirely legally purchased firearm because having a country where millions of people can legally own guns means having a country where millions of kids can just grab one
it turns out people will not 'simply keep them no matter what you or the government tells them', because first, some people actually do care about following the law, and second, enforcement of bans on things does actually tend to lower the prevalence of those things
we know this because weve seen that happen, repeatedly, including in the USA, most every time anything was illegalised in recent history
we also know this because if a gun is confiscated from someone, it is physically impossible for that person to shoot someone else with that gun, because they do not have it
the literal only reason 'criminals can still get guns' is because theres so fucking many legal ones
Here's some info to educate yourself on the logistics I was speaking of - noncompliance with gun bans in New York, where even the county sheriffs refuse to enforce their "assault weapon" bans.
https://hudsonvalleyone.com/2016/07/07/massive-noncompliance-with-safe-act/
If those bans go so poorly in NY state, how well do you think they would work in states with more conservative populations?
Additionally, there are states with "gun ban bans" coded into law already, making compliance with federal gun bans illegal. Obviously the Supremacy Clause would nullify those laws, but they tell you how the state will be unlikely to comply on a practical level. Shit ain't gonna happen, no matter how much you fantasize it happening.
i am shocked that the US police, let alone the new york police, known for their immense professional, legal and moral integrity, are refusing to enforce the laws already in place
i am also shocked that your totally not generic reply that definitely addresses the point that the USA should obviously get rid of guns is just going 'yeah well they arent right now!!'
see
by the way, did you figure out an excuse for why you framed the conversation as being about picking between fewer guns and better mental healthcare yet?*
*did not realise you were not in fact the same guy i originally replied to
You have me confused with someone else, I never said anything about mental healthcare. We definitely need better resources for all Americans to get help with that if they need it though.
I'm opposed to gun bans because Freedom is more important than anything else, especially Security Theater. Banning "assault weapons" amounts to only Security Theater because only 3% or less of homicides in the USA involve rifles including "assault weapons" so it would not help anything but a possible small fraction of the overall violence. When you add the current small impact that they have on the overall amount of violence with the logistic nightmare of enforcing bans, and the unlikelyhood of any bans surviving Supreme Court review, it amounts to a hill of beans that accomplishes nothing except losing voters who value their liberty.
England saw a decrease in suicide rates in the '60s & '70s last century when the levels of carbon monoxide in the natural gas supply were reduced. As a result of this change, people stopped being able to easily commit suicide by sticking their head in the unlit oven and turning it on.
It's not like these people were institutionalized and physically prevented from harming themselves. Making means of suicide too really available seems to allow people to kill themselves who otherwise would not attempt it.
Reducing access to guns- besides the obvious decrease in homicides - will likely cause a noteworthy reduction in suicide, too.
a gun makes it incredibly easy to end someone, including yourself. It takes the killing out of killing and I can promise you that makes a massive difference to the number of both killings and suicides.
So we ban pain killers too? Cleaning chemicals? Rat poison?
The gun didn't make you kill yourself. Not getting help killed you. Stop chasing the guns, they aren't the the problem. The problem is that so many people see them as a solution and they need help.
I am so tired of seeing this braindead take being used as any sort of "gotcha".
try to travel a bit, see the world.
One can do both.
A new assault weapon ban, while ultimately not a cure, would at least stem the tide until real effective change can be enacted.
We'll never fix our problems all at once, in grand sweeping actions. It comes in steps, which takes time. We just need to not destroy ourselves in the mean time.
Of course, that also means actually enacting that slow change, and not just paying lip service as a distraction from issues that are happening now.
My main point about an AWB in relation to suicides was more that people aren't using those kinds of weapons for suicide. The kind weapons these laws are trying to describe aren't even commonly used in crimes. The main reason they're talking about assault weapons now days is because targeting handguns first kinda stalled. That and the marketing works better for them.
There are things they could do that would be effective but it would be other left wing policies that would address root causes. The issue with that is those things seem to be even more of a lip service thing and it's kinda hard to bumper sticker that shit.
So you agree it's mostly political theater, on both sides? All the proponents of "gun rights" are just as pointless and theatrical as the gun bans they oppose? That coming out, guns blazing (as it were) against these measures is just another way to stir up an uninformed and apathetic base to action against the "liberal elite"?
Most of these measures are relatively toothless anyways, they affect tiny portions of the population, most of which just won't be able to purchase new weapons of that style, at least until the gun manufacturers find loopholes, as they always do.
There is political theater going on but with gun control laws they're not going to even stick due to lawsuits. Effectiveness is questionable as well.
The laws do not affect a tiny portion of people though. Lots of weapons that fall under the idea of an assault weapons ban are extremely popular and common. Then such laws would affect future buyers including people who do not have the opportunity to buy something now or didn't think to. Definitely a problem for someone a decade from now who was too young or wasn't into firearms yet. Like that the whole point of the ban right? Stopping people from being able to own something.
The "loopholes" aren't. They're just making something that is in compliance. The problem is they don't know how to define what they want to ban and the ban isn't actually effective for the results they claim.
48.8k people died from gun deaths last year. 54% were suicides, 43% murders, 3% other Of those murders, 3% were with a rifle. (Source was pew research)
630 rifle deaths out of 48.8k
All an assault weapon ban will do is make felons out of otherwise law abiding gun enthusiasts, and chip away at a right guaranteed in our constitution.
Nearly 50k deaths is tragic. We do need to do something about it. But banning guns does not fix the mental health issues, the income disparity, or the lack of education and social services in predominantly black or Hispanic neighborhoods, which contribute to these violent behaviors in our society.
And if you're only concerned about the deaths, consider how drug overdoses outnumber gun deaths by more than 2:1. Maybe we should make drugs illegal instead. Wait....
There have been less than 15 mass shootings since 2012 in the US where the shooter used an "assault rifle". An "assult weapons" ban wouldn't stem the tide at all. This proposed law would be like banning semi trucks because a few drunk driving incidents involved a drunk semi driver.
It stemmed the tide back in the nineties, before it was repealed in the last decade.
But that's honestly beside the point. Because everyone seems to just be against any kind of legal action against firearms, but most opponents of these measures can only point at vague options regarding "mental health" as an alternative... then balk at supporting any measures resembling it.
It's a dogwhistle that is frankly a tired ploy for populist politicians to throw at their base to distract them from real issues.
We must fight against the "evil" gun bans because if we don't fight against that, people might recognize how shit we are at our jobs and actually do something about it!
As I stated in my comment, I know it's not a cure. It's not even a very good stopgap. But at least it's fucking something. Which is more than can be said than by all the people whinging about "constitutional rights".
Why do pro gun Republicans always use mental health as an alternative reason for excessive firearm suicide rates, and then are nowhere to be heard from when someone proposes universal mental health access.
I'm a pro-gun leftist but, yeah, a lack of mental healthcare is an obvious issue when talking about mental health problems. There is absolutely no rational way for you to claim intentional suicide isn't a mental health issue.
If the issue was just guns existing you'd quickly be able to pass any gun laws you wanted due to the lack of gun owners. Plenty of people do not have mental health problems that would require them to be disarmed. No one is getting any treatment just because a gun ban got passed.
What I don't get is why Democrats don't call their bluff and try to create public healthcare options with the stated goal of preventing violence and issues related to mental health.