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. refurb+812[view] [source] 2025-09-11 10:38:57
>>Grapho+n41
You’re quoting statistics that are irrelevant to the point. Mass shootings are not political violence.

I can come up with a multitude of political violence examples in countries with strict weapons laws - New Zealand, France, Japan. Then if you add in other weapons - cars, knives, bombs, the list gets even longer.

The point is - gun control won’t stop political violence. Perpetrators will use other means at their disposal.

◧◩◪◨
4. paulry+Ve2[view] [source] 2025-09-11 12:33:50
>>refurb+812
> The point is - gun control won’t stop political violence. Perpetrators will use other means at their disposal.

Technically true. But gun control means political violence will have to engage much closer and is less likely to be as deadly. Do we want more or less death+maiming in our political violence?

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. refurb+Jn2[view] [source] 2025-09-11 13:26:41
>>paulry+Ve2
You’re missing the forest for the trees.

The issue is political violence. Whether it’s done up close or far away is a distraction from the fact it exists.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. paulry+xr2[view] [source] 2025-09-11 13:45:27
>>refurb+Jn2
Am I? The forest view is that political violence is an inevitable part of life. And that outlawing guns makes them less accessible and therefore less likely to be used in any violent interactions.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. refurb+124[view] [source] 2025-09-12 01:11:11
>>paulry+xr2
You are.

No, political violence isn't an "inevitable part of life".

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. paulry+D4e[view] [source] 2025-09-15 23:43:09
>>refurb+124
Violence is part of human nature. So is politics. I'd rather they didn't mix, and we take reasonable measures to stop all violence. But I don't see how we can make violence impossible without changing human nature.
[go to top]