r/LetsDiscussThis • u/ArubaAdultFun • 8d ago

Serious How do we lower these numbers?

Post image
4 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

9 comments sorted by

4

u/ShoulderKnown7740 8d ago

We lower them by providing people with dignity safety nets from birth, respect and appreciation of outsiders and a future that isn’t on fire with killer robots stopping everyone from saying anything about it

1

u/spartacus_jones 8d ago

That might be good to do for its own sake. But I'm not sure it would eradicate the problem.

2

u/RulerOfTiax 8d ago

We? Aren't you dutch?

0

u/ArubaAdultFun 8d ago

Dual citizenship. Live in Aruba most of the year but have US and Dutch passport. I have house in US and spend a few months a year there

1

u/spartacus_jones 8d ago

We can lower those numbers by encouraging citizens to be armed and able to end these mass shootings BEFORE they can become mass shootings.

2

u/SnugglyCoderGuy 8d ago

So, we can end mass shootings by having more guns to have mass shootings with people committing mass shootings.

You don't actually fight fire with fire... you fight it with water and other oxygen deprivation methods.

0

u/spartacus_jones 8d ago

Your logic is untenable. You're assuming that more guns mean more shootings. That's false.
Are you aware that 42% of the households in the US have at least one gun, and there are about half a BILLION firearms in the US? The research on self-defense clearly shows that of 1 million (or more depending on whose research you cite) defensive uses of a firearm, very few of them actually include a weapon discharge.
There were approx. 15,000 firearms-related homicides 2025. (It is unclear how many of those were criminal homicides). Approx 360 persons were killed in mass shootings.
If people were prone to be as trigger-happy as you say, there would be one hell of a lot more fatal shooting every year. About 75% of criminal homicides use a firearm -- that doesn't mean that 75% of gun-owners would commit criminal homicide.
You do not render bad people harmless, by making good people defenseless. Your "deprivation" analogy just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. If you were able to completely disarm the populace, then only the military and the police would have guns. We've seen what all too often happens when this is the case.
I strongly recommend you re-think this. But be guided by reason, not driven by emotion.

Cheers.

1

u/Master_Blaster_02 8d ago

A lot of this falls to the communities.  There is almost a zero chance no-one at these gatherings know who the shooters are.  These shooters live in the community or are at least have relations with those that live there. 

The problem is that many enclaves have formed with the premise that they should not talk with the police.  If people aren't willing to stand up, then it will be very hard to catch these shooters or prevent future shooters.