And a lot of it has guns too.
The biggest outlier with guns in America is the politicization and them.
Look at Scandinavia, where gun ownership is incredibly high and many firearm laws less-strict than in the US: It’s a region of the world that has most of its shit figured out, and having guns there isn’t a big deal because the rate of violence is so low.
Here in the US, we’ve got a broken social system, essentially zero mental health care for those who really need it, easy access to firearms, and hyper-politicization around firearms that pushes mentally-unstable people towards gun ownership.
When the unstable conspiracy-theory nutjobs hear liberals saying that gun ownership is bad they’re predictably start stocking up on guns and ammo - specifically the black guns the political left keeps trying to ban. And then they snap.
That’s how the guns that make up about 1% of overall firearm deaths started being used much more frequently in mass shootings.
We do need an honest national conversation about guns and their availability, but neither side of the political aisle is willing to really, truly be honest in their policies towards firearms. So we aren’t able to have that conversation and what we end up with is the worst of all outcomes.
This isn’t a both sides thing.
Democrats support better gun regulation and better social services. Republicans fight against better gun regulation and fight against better social services. Just because Republican’s need to rally their base by gleefully twisting any reasonable regulation into “they’re taking our guns” doesn’t mean the liberal side is being dishonest.
You can’t blame liberal policies for being dishonest when pretty much that they have pushed for is completely reasonable. Only one party is being dishonest here.
Democratic gun policies don’t target the guns used most-often in mass shootings or homicides.
They often target cosmetic features, or write laws that actively interfere with development of safety features.
A prime example of the latter was a 2002 New Jersey law that would have outlawed the sale of any firearm without smart safety features once ANY gun with smart features became available.
That basically made all manufacturers immediately stop all progress on developing the technology, because releasing it would essentially crater their entire catalog of products. Therefore there’s been zero commercially-viable smart guns released to the market for over 20 years.
More recently, the ATF re-interpreted a decision regarding the definition of a stock 10 years after a new category of arm braces hit the market. The stabilizing braces were specifically submitted to the ATF for review before ever being made available to the public, and cleared by the Obama-era ATF.
Now they’ve changed their position arbitrarily, and now an estimated 20 million gun owners who purchased a firearm legally are committing a felony by owning it, and the vast majority of them don’t even know about it.
There’s constant talk on the political left about the “gun show loophole.”
There’s no such thing. There’s zero firearm sales rules that don’t apply at a gun show. Hell - on the background check form (ATF 4473) there’s even a box to check for when the background check is being performed at a gun show instead of the dealer’s normal location.
But any licensed firearms dealer still has to go through the normal process at the gun show. Private sellers don’t, but private sellers never have to go through the process (biggest issue that needs to be addressed in my opinion), so the gun show has nothing to do with it.
You also hear about gun laws on one state not mattering because of the less-strict laws in a neighboring state.
Contrary to popular belief, all long-gun sales have to follow the laws and procedures of birth the state where the purchase takes place AND the state where the purchaser lives. When I was a gun salesman in Texas and a California resident tried to buy a gun from me, I had to follow all of California’a processes as well as Texas’s, and I could only sell a long gun that was legal in California.
Why do I use “long guns” as a qualifier? Because the transfer of any handgun to an out of state resident is a federal crime. That applies to dealers as well as private individuals whether the handgun is sold or gifted. My sister lives out of state and if I die none of my pistols can be left to her without committing a felony.
My point is this: most people on the political left don’t know shit about guns, existing gun laws, or what would truly be effective. And when they TRY to write dumbass laws their ignorance poisons the well and makes gun owners who might otherwise support good ideas like improved background checks, cracking down on straw purchasers, making NICS available to private citizens, and more get super defensive.
It’s like when a 90yo who has never owned a computer tries to regulate the Internet without knowing the first thing about technology. They fuck it up and just make matters worse.
Yes, Republicans are monsters who don’t give 2 shits about murder victims. Despite the fact that firearms are a huge hobby of mine I vote Dem every election.
But the Democrats trying to write gun laws are usually no different than the Republicans who say that snow storms are proof that global warming is a hoax.
Honest debate needs honesty from both sides, and the first part of intellectual honesty is being able to admit when you don’t understand something.
Repeatedly trying to pin blame on Democrats for a lack of change in gun regulation only further exposes your actual goal here, and that isn’t to have an honest conversation. Going as far as claiming they know nothing about guns or gun laws, comparing them to climate change deniers, is a pretty bold stance to take on something you clearly don’t understand. No matter how much you need to spread this disingenuous stance, it isn’t a both sides issue. If it was, Republicans would entertain the debate - they do not. If Republicans were interested at all they would propose their own valuable legislation - instead they call for thoughts and prayers for the dead children they refuse to protect and say it is too soon to even discuss how to solve this. It is not both sides. Even if Democrats were as dumb as you hope to sell here, they are actually at the table trying. Republicans are too busy choosing money over protecting children. Not both sides at all.
And intellectual honesty requires more than admitting when you don’t understand - it means leaving your lies and agenda at the door, neither of which you appear capable of doing.
Oh and nice job dropping your previous social services point on this one, losing battle for your agenda. How very honest of you.
That’s literally like saying we should ban cars purely because they cause car accidents… It affects way more people than it needs to and is ultimately very messy and costly. If they found a better way of teaching car safety or making it so people who are too much of an idiot to drive can’t drive, that would make more sense, even if it takes time and effort. Edit: oops replied to the wrong message.
That is another thing worth comparing: A driving licence in the US costs between $20 and $500. Practically no training required. In Germany it costs €2000-€4000 with a lot of theoretical and practical lessons. And that is the reason why you are allowed to drive at 250kmh at the Autobahn.
I mean while we’re at it we should dramatically reduce the necessity and prevalence of cars. Car culture sucks socially, economically, and ecologically.
And yet still there isn’t really a good alternative… Public transportation is slow and annoying, trains are near impossible for America to create now and still also have the issue of there only being certain times you can use it.
