this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
135 points (97.9% liked)
news
320 readers
493 users here now
A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.
Rules:
- Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
- Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
- Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
- Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
- No link shorteners
- No entire article in the post body
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The hyperbolic response is "look at what all the countries without weekly/daily mass shooting are doing and copy them"
In reality it'd need to be something culturally systemic, the removal of guns as a cultural touchstone over generations, with laws slowly applied to back up that effort.
Address the root causes of this kind of violence, quality of life, poverty, mental health in general, Provide mental health support and improve conditions so that less support is needed.
and that'd only be scratching the surface.
To address your specific response, banning guns outright probably would bring these numbers down and if these specific numbers going down was the ultimate (and only) goal then that would make sense, but in reality there would probably be significant issues cause by such a move.
Not to say it isn't viable, just that it's not clear cut.
I've posted a lot on our cultural issue with guns. And I believe a ban would do very little on its own.
We've reenforced rhetoric like "fuck around and find out" and made guns and gun violence an equally valid answer to disagreements. They are discussed in horrible ways that don't stress how they are the final protection against someone trying to seriously and maliciously harm or kill you or someone else.
I believe they have their uses, but we need to take back the gun culture. And build it with responsible use and storage as part of the mindset.
As we've seen silence from the 2a crowd after Trump has taken office, which leads me to the idea that this "culture" might have been subversion to get us to harm ourselves.
American travel overseas and do just fine without their guns. There's no reason they couldn't adjust to not having guns on hand at home.
Some of us live in rural areas and use guns almost daily to defend crops and livestock from pests and predators. How should those people "adjust"?
By defend crops do you mean kill things? There can be exceptions for specific people to own specific types of guns that would make mass shootings impossible. Eg. If it is a heavy rifle that takes minutes to reload.
Yes. White-tailed deer are invasive, eat crops, and cause many single-car accidents in rural areas where emergency services can take 30-45 minutes to respond, if you have cell service to call them. It's very desirable to hunt them during mating season to control their population. Wild boar are also invasive, eat crops, and leave giant ruts that damage equipment.
There is an unfortunately significant overlap between guns ideal for completely legitimate and responsible purposes and guns ideal for committing horrible atrocities.
Hunting often involves walking long distances into remote areas. For this reason, hunters often desire the lightest rifle they can find that will get the job done. In fact, one of the reasons the AR-15 was so popular when it was introduced to the civilian market (as a hunting rifle with a 5-round magazine, btw) is because it was two pounds lighter (six pounds instead of eight) than the Ruger Mini 14, which was the most popular hunting rifle at the time.
Also, hunting often involves putting yourself in the same areas bears and other dangerous animals call their home. Not being prey is the first rule of hunting. The type of rifle you're suggesting would offer significant challenges to a hunter who needed to defend themselves from a wild animal.
How do farmers in other countries do it? Lots of countries have farming without needing ar15s.
You build a road through the middle of the forest, then complain that deer go on the road? So the solution is to kill more deer. You're so American.
If you're unable to comprehend the importance of controlling the populations of invasive species, this conversation can serve no purpose.
There is nothing quite so uniquely irritating as someone who is intensely critical of something they know very little about.
Violence against animals leads to violence against people. You can't avoid that. If invasive species need to be controlled it should be done by authorities who have access to guns while doing their duty. Not random farmers killing at will.