The USA has literally more than one mass shooting1 per day. It has reached the point where these don’t even reach the news any longer unless there’s some special angle to make them “interesting”. The reaction to this, from an outsider perspective, should be “maybe we should do something about the proliferation of freely available guns”. The reaction to this, again from an outsider perspective, seems to be rather “OMG I BETTER BUY MORE GUNS!!!111oneoneoneeleventy!”

What gives? How come the USA has not yet figured out that doubling down on the strategy that led to the nation having a shocking murder rate for the developed world is not a working solution?

What is it about the USA and guns that makes you tolerate this state when you’ve got a culturally-similar nation to the north of you that, despite your cultural problems being imported, still doesn’t have your kill rate?

1 Defined as a shooting event in which at least 4 people other than the shooter are injured or killed.

    • ttmrichter@lemmy.worldOP
      0·
      1 year ago

      To you there is no purpose or reason for a normal person to ever be armed so the concept of protecting that right is alien.

      I’ll make you a deal. You don’t tell me what I think and I won’t tell you what you think. If you want to know what I think, ask. Don’t tell me. Get it? Got it? Good.

      I come from a family that has a large number of ardent hunters. About half the men in my family are hunters and own firearms, despite only a quarter of them living in rural regions. It is thus pretty fucking obvious that I know the purpose for a normal person to be armed, no? But there’s a huge world of difference between having a few hunting rifles and shotguns vs. having semi-automatic (easily converted to fully!) weapons with massive magazines (like, say, the Nevada shooter used). There are very few (if any?) nations in the world that ban private ownership and use of firearms entirely. This includes CHINA. This is because practically every nation in the world understands there is grounds for private ownership of firearms. The USA is not as exceptional as it likes to believe it is … except in its exceptional levels of ammosexuality.

        • ttmrichter@lemmy.worldOP
          0·
          1 year ago

          They see firearm ownership as a moral failing or privilege. That attitude is shown in the laws they want and how they talk about gun owners. Maybe you’re just the type that think the only moral guns are your guns, as in a fudd based position.

          Or maybe I’m just not an American ammosexual. (You fired a blank again, incidentally. I don’t personally own guns and have personally never owned them. I have used them: both in service in the Armed Forces and in hunting with my father. You really are bad at reading minds. You should probably stop.)

          The semi-autos aren’t that easy to convert to full-auto.

          As the Vegas shooter found out to his disadvantage. That’s why the body and injury count was so low there. Imagine how many people he’d have killed if he could have prayed-and-sprayed! He’d likely have caused the largest mass casualty shooting in American history!

          That argument might work better in places where the only firearms civilians are allowed to own are for hunting/sports but that isn’t the case in the US.

          Yes. We’re well aware of American ammosexuality outside the USA. That’s why we look on your nation as utterly fucking insane.