It includes more appropriately addressing actual underlying issues.

If that were the case, you'd be able to point to a significant amount of daily firearm violence - above and beyond every other form of violence.

I'm not sure how you'd argue a background check and being of age at a minimum as a lack of firearm control.

But the problem is still solvable through gun control, because gun control can pervade culture, as demonstrated by many other countries.

How likely do you believe it is to bring about the constitutional amendment necessary to ban firearms? To gain support of 2/3s the states in addition to a 2/3 majority in Congress?

That aside, you could argue symptoms could be addressed through such extremes if it were possible to do so, but you couldn't argue such measures address underlying issues - solve problems.

ammosexuals

Ah, I see we're using conservative tactics in making an "other" group demonize and alienate.

I always say that this is more cultural than anything else.

In the sense that culture is a complete lack of social safety nets, affordable and accessible healthcare and community support resources, broken ERPO laws, etc., sure.

You could argue rampant media oversensationalism of such violence glorifies it and further incentivizes it to those seeking to commit such a gruesome suicide, but that's less culture and more partisan wedge-driving and profiteering off ad revenue.

I’m just criticising how they handle and view guns.

How do you believe we view firearms? I'm interested in hearing how we can do whatever the heck [we] want.

Just relax with the guns and emulate their Swiss brethrens who are self-disciplined about handling guns. Rights come with responsibilities.

It's fortunate, then, that the vast majority of firearm owners are responsible.

The solution is to address underlying issues.

It's actually very simple. Neither party is willing to do it.

In point of fact, many of us exist who are willing to recognize the unavoidable underlying systemic issues, continue to promote firearm ownership, and continue to promote community resources, social safetynets, and otherwise helping out their fellow human.

The world isn't some purely partisan hellscape.

Let's not ignore there are incredibly common underlying issues either party continues to avoid.

Oh, cool - we're pretending there are no other differences between the countries listed, e.g. healthcare, social safety nets, etc. that may or may not have been shown to be an unavoidable majority of the underlying issues.

Gotta enjoy the meme circlejerk though, eh?

You're going to need blue team to be willing to pivot and actually address issues and to do so in a such a manner as to interest red team...

You're right, they'll never go for it.

Pretty much this; the politics subs put an incredibly fine point on it.

In fact I’d argue they’re more free as they don’t have to worry about being involved in a massacre just because some white male incel fuckup is having a bad day.

Fortunately, the only reason to have such fear is media sensationalism and your personal failure to understand the statistics.

Despite the fearmongering, you're still not even close to likely to experience one.

Conversely, anyone with an IQ above room temperature will understand the appropriate way to solve a problem is to address the underlying causes, e.g. actually addressing the reasons behind mass shootings instead of only caring because firearms are involved.

Yes you do enjoy high levels of ownership in the US. You also enjoy extreme numbers of firearm related homicide and spree killing all in the name of an antiquated and poorly grammarically construed piece of legislation made by paranoid rebels back before the average rifle had rifling much less high capacity magazines.

I see we're going for most level-headed ex-Redditor - hit me up when you've got a point instead of a hyperbolic rant.

The option always exists to ditch it as a right.

Lol, good luck with that amendment.

Ah, falling back on the "dEaD cHiLdReN" parallel - neat.

As the other person highlighted that is a restriction on a thing which is quite the opposite of a constitutionally-protected right.

You might want to brush up on the difference between the two subjects.

This is a lot of splitting of hairs on your part.

I'm not sure I'd consider criticism of Johns Hopkins tendency to make assertions not supported by underlying sources and tendency to use sources with glaring methodological flaws and myriad biases to be merely splitting hairs - the distinctions highlighted are both substantial and serious.

Are you a social scientist and a statistician? If not, I will defer to the experts on this.

I am a software engineer. Analysis is my bread and butter.

You'll note my criticism isn't of their ability to compute statistics, but rather the methodology used for identifying data points for consideration having flaws skewing outputs and for their survey being an exercise in confirmation bias.

Feel free to defer to others - however, please understand you're also waiving your right to reference or discuss this study when you decide you aren't going to bother to understand it and what it's actually stating. I'm not comfortable opting to skip the critical thinking phase, but you do you.

The amount of unreported domestic abuse dwarfs the amount that is reported.

Nifty. I'm not sure how the homicides would be under reported, though - given that's the subject.

Also, solely focusing on deaths is a misnomer. Being threatened by an abuser with a gun is rather common and also detrimental to the mental health of the victim.

You may have meant methodological flaw.

Either way, given the subject was deaths as raised by Johns Hopkins, feel free to provide them such feedback.

I'm sure they'll get right on it.

You use the word privilege here and firearm ownership should be a privilege.

It's downright nifty to feel that way.

The reality is it's a constitutionally-protected right.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that guarantees the ownership and free usage of a car.

I'm not sure you thought this through; they're entirely unregulated in use on private property.

Taking someone’s ability to drive has way more of an effect on the daily quality of life of a person than taking their guns away yet people often do not quibble over someone this happens to

Lol - it's okay because occasionally people don't complain? Yikes.

Have you heard of the danger of the indifference of good men?

There are lots of democratic societies who apply this to guns. Iceland and Canada for instance still have a high level of gun ownership but it is a licencable privilege, not a right.

Canada, in particular, is doing its best to do away with even that - it's not a great example. I'm also not sure you can find any example that even approaches the level of ownership we enjoy.

For everyone else:

Yea the thing this article puts in the fine print is he has not been convicted of any crimes, he has not had his bail revoked by the judge, and none of the alleged crimes were fellonius. If any of these three conditions had been met, he would not have his weapons. The case was not struck down due to a 2A violation, it was struck down because it’s unconstitutional under the due process clause, and pretty black and white at that. If he endangered the public after his arraignment the judge should have revoked his bail.

One of those conditions is being someone who is capable of responsible ownership.

Oh? Was that from the Lost Chapter of the Bill of Rights?

Threatening the safety of another person is a lack of that trait.

Then a person should have no difficulty with the assault and/or battery conviction or the significant evidence in support of an ERPO and proving it, justifying the infringement on a right.