“There is no way to prevent this” says only country where this happens regularly.
Also, “It’s too soon after this tragedy to politicize it.”
No, that is 12 hour later. 24 hours later it is too soon after the next day’s tragedy.
Whoawhaowhao you can’t use political words yet. Everyone knows only once you have all “thoughts and prayers” lined up and fill 2.2 football fields, divided by 2 minus 15 eagles worth of words, can you then even mention politics.
At 8 football fields you can bring up 2A. But what would the world be like if we started changing “amendments”. We’d have to make the word amendment a synonym of change or something, that would be crazy.
Since these things happen on a daily basis, it’s always too soon. Funny how that works.
“If only she had a gun, this would have been prevented.”
Their answer is always ‘more guns will solve this’.
Happens all the time in other nations.
Sure it does. In Yemen, Venezuela, El Salador, Serbia etc… you mean?
Sorry, I meant developed nations
lol when was the last time a stray bullet randomly hit someone in any other developed country?
450+ million guns, you’re not stopping gang violence like this which is the mass majority of all of our gun crime, by banning guns from lawful citizens. Dudes like this are already barred. Why don’t you ask, why out system let him out.
Says man from only country where this happens regularly.
Plenty of other countries haven’t banned guns from lawful citizens and dont have this problem.
Ok, man from perfect country. How would you personally solve this problem of gun violence? Would you form a posse and roundup all of the crazed lunatics out there who would dare to try and protect their families with a firearm? Would you raid the houses of anyone who may or may not have owned a gun in the past and search under the floorboards?
Seriously I want to know. How would you help all of these mentally ill people who seem to think that guns are toys, or just deeply want to harm other people?
You don’t need me to tell you that. You wouldn’t believe me anyway. There are plenty of professionals who have studied and acquired factual data of how other “perfect countries” do it and the differences. From the differences the solutions become very clear.
It’s about restricting access, not banning. There’s no one size fits all solution because nothing is perfect so you pick your poison. Find a country where this doesn’t happen every day (so any developed country), look a the way they do things and pick the one you prefer to support - they all have upsides and downsides. What you have isn’t working though.
Every country that has basically an effective ban, also has safety nets for the people, doesn’t have a gang problem like we do, and focuses on education and not locking everyone up. They also never had 450+ million firearms in civilian hands. So please share with the class how you think you could pull it off without having all those safety nets in place.
How about having all those safety nets in place and regulated guns? Just an idea…
I’m fine with adding in the safety nets, they’ll do 100xs more than any regulation you put in place will do. I’m not ok giving over a monopoly on force to people like the current Republicans. Why any of you think that’s a good idea is just insane.
That’s an exaggeration. The US has a better safety net than a lot of countries with much less gun death and violence. Education could better for a rich country, but is not bad. I am all for locking fewer people up, but that’s not the reason there’s gun violence.
This is always the argument against improving anything in the US. “We’re too special!” It’s just not true. Background checks, wait times, permit requirements, concealed carry restrictions, domestic violence restrictions, etc. These have all been empirically shown to reduce gun deaths in the US.
Maybe put those safety nets in place? Offer buy-backs on firearms, or a grace period to turn in unregistered firearms with no questions? Crack down on fraudulent “theft” and loss reports? Modernize the firearms database? Create incentives for law enforcement to execute red-flag laws? Require a higher level of training and responsibility to own a firearm?
Literally doing the bare minimum and just effectively enforcing the laws on the books would make a huge improvement, but we can’t even do that because republicans like to whip up the base with the idea that their right to own an AR-15 is going to stop the liburl gubment from takin awah mah rites!
This has been proven to be untrue by other countries who have done the same in the past.
No it hasn’t, no one in the history of the world has had this many firearms in civilian hands. Even when Australia took the firearms, only 60% turned in their 1mil total firearms in civ hands.
And gun deaths have dropped enormously ever since.
Australia never had a firearm problem to begin with. This is pants on head stupid take. If you have 100 deaths from firearms a year and removing access to the already small amount in civ hands and gun deaths drop to 50… everyone now says firearms removed from people dropped by 50% when it was already so low it was a rounding error to begin with.
No, we just had the largest massacre of private citizens by a single shooter in recorded history, (still hasn’t been beaten despite how often Americans try, they must really hate us being better than them at something involving guns), and numerous others before it, and none after it. But tell me again how you know nothing about Australia, it’s history, or gun control.
I might buy this argument if other countries also had the same problem. But the fact is that stricter gun laws do work, and the U.S. is very unique in having this issue thanks to our insistence on the 2nd ammendment being infallible.
You can also ask why there are so many guns freely floating around that someone like this was capable of obtaining one despite being barred.
Maybe if someone is so dangerous that they are barred from owning a gun they belong in a cage…
That’s stupid. If it were illegal to carry guns around, far fewer crooks would carry guns. They’d be harder to get and they’d have to balance the risk of being caught with a gun.
Lol what??? It’s already illegal for criminals to carry. That’s why they do it, they’re criminals. We now have more states with CC than ever before, and we actually have lower crime now than we did back in the 70/80s when CC wasn’t allowed.
How about we just get rid of “private sale” exceptions to background checks in states like Tennessee to slow the tide of guns flowing into the black market?
In Tennessee, one has to buy liquor from the government, but can buy a gun (including semi-auto rifles) from a random person in a parking lot. No questions asked.
I know a person who actually obtained a handgun this way. In a parking lot of a bar on Florida, from a seller who was in his lunch break as an electrician… I’ll let those details sink in for anyone safety oriented.
O noooo, a bar parking lot…the humanity…did this someone you know go on to become a serial killer? Or do you still know them and they’re a normal person.
Most firearms are semi-auto… what’s your point? You clearly don’t know much about firearms with a statement like that.
You can do this in pretty much every state as well. Private sales are legal basically in the entire USA.
deleted by creator
I’m so tired of this brain dead take. The amount of guns on the street and gang violence is directly related to how easy it is to aquire them.
gang violence like this which is the mass majority of all of our gun crime
Source?
The most recent stats I could find for gang-related deaths (gun or not) was 2012, when there were 2,363 reported out of a national total of 12,765 homicides.
That is known gang violence, where police %100 know it’s gang related. If they do not know the source, they label it as unknown. The estimate is around 80-85% are gang and drug related violence. This isn’t some unknown thing.
With 8,855 firearm murders in 2012, 2,363 is a significant part of that.
The 2,363 figure also includes non-firearm murders—I was looking for directly-comparable stats.
But in any case, it isn’t anywhere near a “mass majority”.
whistling noises
Marx has the answer. Change material conditions, so there is less crime, thus less need for prisons. But no one wants to read.
You mean no one wants a tankie shithole for a country…
Yes, no one wants to read. This “accident” didn’t happen in a Marxist-Leninist country.
You don’t know what you are talking about. It’s not a good look
No I absolutely do know what I’m talking about, but the lot of you all don’t have a clue. You sit in your white privilege ivory towers and think only the police should have a monopoly on force…and at the same time wanting to defund them as well. You make no sense.
If only she had a gun she could have protected herself!
Don’t give them ideas…
Oh they already have them!
And they suck and are stupid. Hate to sound crazy, but I’m tired of their fight fire with fire rhetoric. I just want them to realize how inept they sound.
Could have easily used the gun to shoot down the bullet.
How in the FUCK does that guy get access to guns? Is there literally no check and balances for buying a gun in the states? WTF
From the article it sounds like there were two people randomly shooting at a car. It’s plausible that the other guy just gave him one if his guns.
Either way and my point still stands. It’s fucking insanity.
Well when Americans INSIST that rootin tootin point and shootin is the only way, then yeah - this shit is gonna keep happening. I’m all about better gun laws, but you’d think I’m growing devil horns when I talk about it
I completely agree.
deleted by creator
Shouldn’t it be a crime to give a loaded gun to someone who is mentally incompetent to stand trial?
Why is someone who is not mentally competent enough to stand trial allowed to return to society? He should have been under medical supervision, not wandering the streets.
That costs money. If we spent money on medical needs, who would fund the war machine?
deleted by creator
There are more guns than people in this country. Even if you banned their sale entirely there will still be plenty to go around.
For a time. But if you made it illegal to transfer a firearm by any means and set up a buy-back program where when gun owners died the government would claim the guns and provide fair compensation to the estate you could get rid of the guns without taking anyone’s guns away. It would take decades, of course, but every day there would be few guns out there and, importantly, the young people that commit most gun violence would be the people with the hardest time getting and carrying one. You can’t expect we’ll solve a problem that took decades to metastasize overnight anyway.
So there are solutions. That’s just one. We don’t solve this problem not because we can’t but because we don’t have the will to.
I appreciate your optimism but standing here in red rural America I don’t think it will ever happen. There are an insane amount of guns here with more and more every day.
You’d be surprised what people are willing to let go of when they see children in their community being murdered. Doesn’t matter what political spectrum you’re on. There are major gun safety advocates who used to be 2a Rambo’s who lost children and realized how wrong they were. It’s just not worth it.
You’d be surprised what people are willing to let go of when they see children in their community being murdered.
LOL, let me tell you about a town in Connecticut called Newtown and how the events there changed absolutely nothing about US gun policies…
I’d urge you to actually look at the response. Look at the legacy section of the sandy hook shooting. It actually did change the laws in some places in other places it got worse.
Until there aren’t.
There were more buildings with asbestos in the US than people. Then we fixed it.
When in US history was there ever more buildings than people, much less buildings with asbestos?
Yeah but the founding fathers just forgot to include the freedom to put asbestos in walls in the Constitution!
Pursuit of happiness, obviously.
Can we really have happiness without asbestos? 🤔
What a challenging character: He had a brain injury in infancy, functions at a kindergarten level, and can’t be tried due to incompetence, but he apparently drives and repeatedly pulls straps.
Thank God for American logic and lobbying, we avoided punishing our loyal gun owners
This is the kind of story you save for one of those 2A “shall not be infringed” absolutists. There is no way that a just set of laws would let this guy get a gun.
A Nashville college student died a day after she was shot in the head allegedly by a man authorities said had previously been released for incompetence to stand trial in a separate shooting
The guy probably has an IQ of 15. Which also correlates with the average IQ of people who are attracted to shooting guns at cars outside near a park. We can only walk as fast as society’s slowest person..
I recommend watching part 1 and 2
It’s pretty easy to buy a gun in this state. If he does get flagged by the system the black market is flooded with them. There’s an epidemic in Nashville (and probably many other places) of guns being stolen from vehicles. Almost no arrests are ever made, and yet people still leave firearms in their cars.
Does TN have licensing or permitting? I’m guessing no. Maybe they should, if there are that many irresponsible people leaving firearms unsecured.
They passed a law a couple years ago for open carry. Anyone able to purchase a gun can have a loaded handgun with them concealed or not. It’s basically the wild west out here.
Just commenting on checks and balances, there generally aren’t any. It’s a constitutional right to have guns in the USA, so most laws that would enforce any kind of restrictions on ownership or access to firearms, are usually deemed unconstitutional and thrown out.
There are entire groups actively working to ensure everyone has fair and unrestricted access to guns, most notably the NRA. Those groups are unapologetic about what they do and they’ve been very successful in maintaining the status quo for gun access.
IMO as long as the right to bear arms stays enshrined in the US Constitution, this will not change.
I’m not an American and I’m very thankful for that because of things like this, however, my life is very affected by what happens there. As a result, I’m pretty well versed on their country. At times, I know the US laws better than my own countries laws.
Unfortunately it has recently changed …. For the worst.
Previously there were restrictions on carrying and ownership in many states. Those laws were deemed legal because they weren’t bans but limited restrictions . It was enough to make a difference and most such states gad had noticeably lower firearm violence. So we even proved within the US that such laws worked.
Then the Trump Supreme Court struck down most of them
deleted by creator
That’s what happens when people can do private sales without any checks 👍 FREEDOM MOTHERFUCKER!
deleted by creator
Thank goodness mentally incompetent people can still purchase and own firearms, wouldn’t feel like freedom any other way.
deleted by creator
But mentally incompetent people can hold guns? Wonderful
deleted by creator
Yeah but that makes it harder for people to actually address the fact that high rates of firearm ownership is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for high rates of homicide, which has consistently been correlated with a lack of socioeconomic mobility among young adult men across societies and times. But that’s hard, so instead we just sarcastically post “FREEDOM” and “now is not the time to address guns” while, ironically, never actually doing the difficult but necessary work of discussing the underlying structural economic conditions and caste dynamics which lead to this problem. Because that’s hard.
High rates of gun ownership is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for high rates of homicide. “Necessary” would imply that high homicide rate is flat out impossible without high gun ownership, which is clearly not true.
Mentally incompetent Americans. Mentally incompetent people in civilized countries usually don’t even come close to guns.
EDIT: Looks like the ammosexuals don’t like my take. Yes, people lile you are left unarmed for good in civilized countries, if you like it or not.
Wouldn’t his status as being mentally incompetent come up somewhere? I’m not from the USA and hate guns so I don’t know all the details about these background checks.
In some of our states, a “background check” is when the examiner looks up from his desk. If you’re blocking the background, he checks the “good to own a firearm” box.
Yeah except the part where it is federal law that all FFL dealers have to run an FBI NICSs check on all gun sales in every state because that is a federal law.
deleted by creator
The alternative is that you have to do paperwork every time you buy or sell a gun, which is actually worse than innocent people dying
The only paperwork I need is the one written by a bunch of old white dudes who owned slaves and barely washed 😎
Looks like someone didn’t find that funny 😂
Freedom to kill innocent people, freedom to die randomly by flying bullets.
Can’t have one without the other (contrary to what ammosexuals believe)
“Stray Bullet” makes it sound like the bullet got off leash. This was a reckless and irresponsible use of firearms and we should start calling it that.
Irresponsible use of firearms in an irresponsible gun culture. Toxic combo.
Sounds like you’re conflating gangbangers who post tiktok videos of themselves blasting the air with the 1/3-1/2 of normal humans in American households who own guns.
The real problem here seems to have been the court confusing a gangbanger for a human who can integrate into society.
Yeah, fuck that NRA apologist bullshit
small price to pay for freedom
Then do us a favour and pay up.
Death is the price you pay to buy freedoms, it’s not a fucking subscription service.
As a matter of fact, it is a subscription, and it’s exactly how the right to privacy, right to not self-incriminate, due process in general, and “beyond a reasonable doubt” work: on the principle that it’s better that some evil people will get off and reoffend than it is for innocent people to be incarcerated for failing to prove their innocence. Not how it always works when prosecutors and judges have a different personal philosophy, but that’s the idea and the trade-off taken.
No, it’s not. Suffering death is the cost of not having the rights to live. Death is the cost of winning those rights. You believe it’s a subscription service because you haven’t won those rights yet and you’re still paying the cost of not having the right to live.
I’m not sure you fully understand the words you’re saying, “right to live” would necessarily demand compelling people to act in the furtherance of everyone else’s lives. You could be held criminally liable for eating too much for example, because you’re taking away resources needed to keep others alive, and your unhealthy lifestyle taxing the health system actively hurts those who need it more.
You’re looking for a different kind of government altogether.
Agreed completely
They’re even admitting they won’t take the responsibility to attempt tracking it down!
Shhh, in the US they are very strongly against making sure gun owners are properly tested for how to operate guns and psychological state they are in. Rumors say it could lead to less shooting incidents but it obviously can’t be true because. … eh… amendment yes amendment !
The cost of freedom i guess
“Freedom”
There is so much that is unfortunate about this. First off, another person dead because of guns. Second, there is so much news and uproar because she was a young white woman. This is undeniable. Third, in looking for statistics on stray bullet incidences, I found that there is no official tracking in the US.
I found a study of 2008 stray bullet incidents, including deaths from combining news reports. In the year, they found 284 of 501 unique reports of different incidences that met criteria injuring 317 ppl (almost one a day). Of these, about 20% died, and most injured were at home, not aware of any gun violence. Suffice to say, each statistic is a person just like her, and their deaths are all needless tragedies brought on by gun culture.
Source: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201323
deleted by creator
Chris Rock had a great bit on this a long time ago. Bullet Control
One could argue “Shaquille Taylor” does as he arguably played a key role by pulling the trigger.
deleted by creator
Bruh why you gotta be a bullet blamer like that. If the car hadn’t been there non of this happens.
Child in Gunsville, Alabama, dressed as gun holding a gun at a local gun appreciation day parade gets shot in the gun by a group of gun-shooting friends called the “fun guns gun group” who’s group motto is “let’s gun for fun!”. Now is not the time to discuss guns.
This wasn’t just a stray bullet. This was a madman who had terrorized people with guns in the past, and was set free because he isn’t fit to stand trial, which somehow means he’s fit to be free and have guns.
I don’t give a fuck about the shooters backstory or why he’s messed up in the head, he should never been allowed out in society of he’s not fit, yet dangerous.
America moment
Well this is america, you have to expect stray bullets.
True, but the inaction on this issue is unacceptable.
A society where you have to expect stray bullets has a problem. When you have a problem, you take action to correct that problem. The US does not take any action to correct the problem. The problem continues.
USA! USA! USA!
Guns don’t kill stray bullets do…
Bullets don’t kill, kinetic energy does.
Get the glue out I guess.
The only strays found in parks should be dogs. Not freaking bullets!!! What the heck is a ‘stray bullet’ anyway, they move in straight lines and can only be set off by someone pulling a trigger.
we shouldn’t be finding strays anywhere. please adopt dogs and bullets from your local shelter.
I imagine some “stray bullet” injuries/deaths are caused by firing into the air causing an arc. Don’t mean to “actually” you but it likely isn’t always a shot fired horizontally.
I agree with you by the way. And gun control could start would rigorous training requirements (like checking backstops, education on safety) – it wouldn’t have to be “they’re taking our guns!”.
Tbf neither are actually “allowed” to be in parks.
