A familiar horror reached Pooja Kanda first on social media: There had been a sword attack in London. And then Kanda, who was home alone at the time, saw a detail she dreaded and knew all too well.
A man with a sword had killed a 14-year-old boy who was walking to school. Two years ago, her 16-year-old son, Ronan, was killed by two sword-wielding schoolmates while walking to a neighbor’s to borrow a PlayStation controller.
“It took me back,” Kanda, who lives near Birmingham, said about Daniel Anjorin’s April 30 killing in an attack in London’s Hainault district that also wounded four people. “It’s painful to see that this has happened all over again.”
In parts of the world that ban or strictly regulate gun ownership, including Britain and much of the rest of Europe, knives and other types of blades are often the weapons of choice used in crimes. Many end up in the hands of children, as they can be cheap and easy to get.
In parts of the world that ban or strictly regulate gun ownership, including Britain and much of the rest of Europe, knives and other types of blades are often the weapons of choice used in crimes. Many end up in the hands of children, as they can be cheap and easy to get.
Before people come in and use this as an argument against gun control, these attacks kill far fewer people per attack.
When you are done tripping over yourself to silence those you disagree with consider this, both are treating the SYMPTOM not the disease
The fun thing about the US is that the people opposed to dealing with the symptom are also usually opposed to dealing with the disease.
Right? I’ve long said that Democrats should just pivot and say, “Okay you don’t want to work on getting guns out of the hands of criminals? Okay whatever. You agree part of this is a result of mental health? Okay, then let’s pass Universal healthcare with guaranteed access to therapy and more.”
They’d have my vote, along with probably tens of millions of other independents.
Honestly, gun control is the “poison pill” of the Democratic platform. They’ve got a ton of great ideas and policies but demand one of your civil rights in exchange. Even for people who aren’t into guns, the idea giving up any civil right is problematic to say the least.
I’m fully on-board with a national gun ban and a complete change of the 2nd amendment, but I know we are also decades away from that realistically. Boomers and GenX will have to die off first. Can’t teach old dogs new tricks.
Not making me feel better about my previous statement…
Like I said I’m good with either direction. Pragmatic pivoting to root causes, addressing the hemorrhagic symptoms, or both.
Last I checked, physicians must treat both symptoms and diseases simultaneously. E.g., the Shock. The bleeding. The excess fever.
Similarly there’s no reason both cannot be tackled simultaneously here as well; for the root cause is often far more difficult to address than treating symptoms.
So yes, address the root causes such as:
- Reducing societal stress (reduce work weak, lower socioeconomic inequality)
- Expand and improve baseline education levels
- Provide Universal healthcare with free access to mental health including therapy.
… But also address the symptoms, which means that when someone does inevitably fall through the cracks, they’re not given free and easy access to gun that is lethally more effective than a knife.
The US public and Congress have been making a mistake for 40 years by getting distracted by the “how” and not focusing on addressing the “why”.
Don’t make the same mistake.
You can both engage in immediate harm reduction while also working towards solutions to poverty and deprivation.
Providing for people’s needs will be the most effective way to reduce the violent crime rate… But it won’t go away entirely. Ever. Some people have their heads screwed on backwards. Some people have fringe religious ideologies that encourage violence. Some people are raging alcoholics even with money and security - they’ll commit domestic violence no matter how wealthy they are.
None of them should own guns.
When politicians are looking to score points with the public will they enact expensive social safety nets, or will they push for cheap and quick weapon bans?
Do politicians care about efficacy, or do they care about appearing to take action?
If a person’s goal is to reduce homicides the means need to be decoupled from the argument. It’s highly counterintuitive, but four decades of US domestic policy have proven that if the means of homicide are a part of the discussion politicians will focus on it in order to look like they’re doing something without spending enormous amounts of taxpayer money - efficacy be damned.
Approximately the same number of people die from gun homicides as homelessness in the USA.
I don’t want to solve either/or - I want to solve both.
And while deprivation is a common root they have other uncommon causes that need addressing. The gun craze of America needs to be clamped down on and regulated.
We have the ability to do both. Why would you argue against one?
Because the gun laws in place are about as far as things can go without repealing the second amendment. Further laws are either doomed to fail or make only marginal differences.
Those bills and proposals waste precious political capital that could otherwise be used passing laws that address the root causes of homicide.
