zlacker

[return to "Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah"]
1. Glypto+mV[view] [source] 2025-09-10 23:47:19
>>david9+(OP)
I'm mildly curious what the reaction to this will be compared to the reaction to other recent political murders, like the Hortmans, or of Thompson.

That said, I think people need to recognize that in many aspects what's happening is connected to societal issues that gun control and gun regulations will have very little impact on - remember, even in Japan somebody could make some kind of battery ignited home-made shotgun and kill Shinzo Abe.

◧◩
2. Grapho+n41[view] [source] 2025-09-11 00:52:49
>>Glypto+mV
> even in Japan somebody could make some kind of battery ignited home-made shotgun and kill Shinzo Abe

ok let's try data instead of feels. Per Capita, what is the number of mass shootings per year in the USA, and in Japan. I did't know the answer but asked Gemini.

The most recent year for which there is data, apparently, is 2023, during which there were 604 mass shootings in the USA, and 1 in Japan. Given the respective population counts, the per-capita rate of mass shootings in the United States was about 225 times higher than in Japan.

Given that, are you confident that your observation that "one guy made a gun once in Japan" is a strong refutation of the idea that the US could reduce mass shootings by strengthening regulations?

◧◩◪
3. ivape+ba2[view] [source] 2025-09-11 11:57:23
>>Grapho+n41
How come there’s no gun violence in prison but plenty of stabbings? Prison is the highest concentration of violent criminals and yet no gun violence. To quote the great Eddie Izzard, “you can’t just walk up to someone and yell BANG. The gun helps”.
◧◩◪◨
4. Glypto+YQ3[view] [source] 2025-09-11 23:07:05
>>ivape+ba2
I can't tell if your comment is serious. Did you know that if everyone lived in a 7x7 cell they couldn't leave there'd be no drunk driving deaths too?
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. ivape+5j5[view] [source] 2025-09-12 14:35:10
>>Glypto+YQ3
There’s positives to cars that far outweigh the cost of drunk driving. Gun ownership does not “far outweigh” its consequences.

I will just casually ignore your reductionist argument, I’m sure you’ll understand. Reasonable people don’t argue that way as all arguments would just … boil down to nothing.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. Glypto+NRd[view] [source] 2025-09-15 22:02:40
>>ivape+5j5
It's hard to take your argument seriously given that (a) prisons are an intentional police state and a generally unpleasant abode, (b) people are still violently dying in them anyway (well over double non-prison homicide rate even with somewhat effective dangerous property restrictions), (c) there's no sane way to apply prison levels of property restriction to the public at large outside of prisons (and we live in a world where the ability to fabricate weapons at home grows day by day), (d) whether gun ownership outweighs its downsides is as similarly complex and judgement driven a question as whether cars do: both have complex downside and benefits with situational and unclear boundaries. That people can with a straight face "why should anyone need a gun" in a country with food deserts and regions with deer overpopulation problems while often treating "why should anyone need a Lamborghini?" as an offensive or silly question only illustrates.
[go to top]