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.

... and who additionally lack the necessary social safety net and accessible healthcare the Swiss have which coincidentally address many of the common underlying issues.

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?

If only there were other factors which could impact the highlighted systemic issues... perhaps Canada's notable single-payer healthcare system, social safety nets, etc. impacting the desperation and providing help?

There will still be kids slipping through. They also say it themselves:

Indeed.

So, what's more effective?

Reducing the scope of those seeking to commit such atrocities to a small fraction of those now, or hoping for improvement via symptom whack-a-mole?

https://poemanalysis.com/idiom/apples-to-oranges/

I see we're projecting in our assessments. I can understand how being confronted with proof one's opinion is wrong, may you deal with it with grace in the future.

Right, like bringing about constitutional amendments requiring a majority of states and Congresspeople instead of a change which simply requires a majority of Congresspeople.

So much more feasible.

Because guns are simply just plentiful and easy to get, and too many apologetics keep allowing them to be plentiful.

You seem to be close to a moment of understanding here but not quite getting it. You seem to recognize that there are other tools available to affect such disastrous outcomes we'd be doing nothing to address, but to also pretend that there's no indication nor chance anyone would use any of these other tools.

You seem to recognize the futility of the whack-a-mole game while recognizing its existence.

Yes it doesn’t fix society’s underlying issues but that is a MUCH harder problem to solve than simply getting rid of (as many) guns (as possible), or at least not just allow so mamy people to own them willy nilly.

It really isn't. How much effort do you believe will be required to bring about an amendment to the constitution of the United States?

How much less effort will be required to bring about simple legislative changes? By simple comparison of the two vectors of change, one of them is unquestionably easier than the other. Spoiler: It isn't undoing the 2nd amendment.

Interestingly enough, you seem to double-down on the previous recognition the problem - pressures toward mass violence - would be left unaddressed but with the vast majority of options for mass harm still very much present and ignored.

The goal is to drastically reduce the number of innocent lives being taken ASAP, not to argue about weapons or social ills or all of this other nonsense.

Which is more effective: A change which is quite impossible to bring about, or a change which can be brought about with some difficulty and compromise?

Which is more effective: A change which removes one of unbounded options to bring about a given end, or a change which reduces the count of people seeking to bring about a given end with any tool available?

We both know you know the answer.

You respond as if in disagreement yet the article affirms everything I’ve said lol.

There is no single profile for a mass shooter. Your best chance at getting any one thing correct about them is that they’re male. 94% chance.

I'd be interested in your reasoning here as the article summarily disagrees with your first statement; it highlights an incredible degree of commonality among mass shooters above and beyond "male".

You'd have to read it to know that, I suppose.

I'm glad you found the copy/paste buttons, but I do wish you'd bothered to read up.

I wasn't aware candy required going through a background check and being a legal adult.

It's also impossible given the state of partisan gridlock and the constitutional amendment necessary.

Fortunately, actually solving problems here is far simpler than asinine bans.

Right, let's keep pretending it's about the weapon over actual program solving.

Let's not pretend the incredibly common pattern only consists of two people while pretending an actual outlier - Vegas - is somehow common.

"fail ASVAB" aside, this is true

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.

I'm particularly enjoying the sentiment after Castlevania was Bisexual, The Show.

They've both been pretty great but I've got a lot of catching up to do on Nocturne.

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.

Except where they were as shown by reference.

They don’t have to petition. POs have hearings. That IS due process.

I see we're intentionally disregarding the civil part being insufficient and the lack of proof being required along with the inconsistencies.

Want to keep your guns? Stop being a dick and present as someone with the self-control that society has decided is required to own one.

Want to take away someone's rights? Provide proof beyond reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of a crime.

It's interesting that you support a Johns Hopkins piece with... a John Hopkins piece. That's a bit like doubling down on Everytown.

That particular claim is built upon some incredibly sketch analysis. This is the most common backing source.

The methodology:

An 11-city case–control design was used; femicide victims were cases (n = 220), and randomly identified abused women residing in the same metropolitan area were control women (n = 343). Co-investigators at each site collaborated with domestic violence advocacy, law enforcement, and medical examiner offices in implementing the study. Sampling quotas for cases and control women in each city were proportionately calculated so that the cities with the highest annual femicide rates included the largest number of cases and control women.

There's already a flaw here - bias in selection. By prioritizing 11 of the ~20k cities, towns, and villages in the US which has the highest counts of domestic violence murder of the female, they're skewing away from instances where there's... less murder. Of course your homicide rates are going to report higher, no matter what the risk factor.

It gets better, though - they skew numbers further by eliminating those with a history of abuse and those just too old to care about:

Two exclusion criteria, age (18–50 years) and no previous abuse by the femicide perpetrator, resulted in the elimination of 87 additional cases (28.3% of 307 cases), with 59 (19.2% of 307 cases) eliminated solely as a result of the latter criterion.

It's interesting they don't actually note what those cities are - it would be good to know if there are other notable stats e.g. crime rate, poverty, safety nets, so on. Heck, they recognize such:

Another limitation was that we excluded women who did not reside in large urban areas (other than Wichita, Kan) and control group women who did not have telephones. We also failed to keep records of exactly which proxy interviews (estimated to be less than 10% of the total) were conducted in person rather than by telephone, and thus we cannot evaluate the effects of this source of bias. Finally, we have no way to compare the control women who participated with those who did not, and women living in the most dangerous situations may have been less likely to participate as control women. If so, true exposure to the risk factors of interest among women involved in abusive intimate relationships may be greater than our control data suggest, thus inflating our estimates of increased risks associated with these exposures.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest Wichita isn't a model of prosperity and social safety nets.

That brings us to another flaw - this study isn't interested in identifying the spread and impact of all risk factors but instead is only interested in confirming presence of an already-suspected risk factor - another problem they recognize:

The interview included previously tested instruments, such as the Danger Assessment,16,17 and gathered information on demographic and relationship characteristics, including type, frequency, and severity of violence, psychological abuse, and harassment; alcohol and drug use; and weapon availability. ... Perhaps the most important limitation of the study is its necessary reliance on proxy respondents for data regarding hypothesized risk factors for intimate partner femicide cases.

This flaw entirely precludes consideration for the whether or not the presence of the firearm was material in the person's decision to murder e.g. impulsivity, whether or not they'd have just used another implement, etc.

That brings us to the most egregious flaw - simple, classic misleading through emotional appeal. Setting aside the selection bias and risk of over-representation, what is the actual rate and actual factor? You'll note none of the studies seem to actually address this. Going with Violence Policy Center's analysis of 2019 data, they at least provide numbers:

In 2019, there were 1,795 females murdered by males in single victim/single offender incidents that were submitted to the FBI for its Supplementary Homicide Report.

So, in 2019, a given woman was subject to odds of five ten thousandths of a percent (1,795/~330 million) likely to be murdered in domestic violence. If we extrapolate up to an expected life span of, say, 80 years, a given woman has been exposed to an ~0.04% total likelihood of being murdered in domestic violence. Oh, but that would hypothetically only be ~0.009% without those firearms; clearly they're the problem.

This source also provide a breakdown of implements:

Nationwide, for homicides in which the weapon could be determined (1,566), more female homicides were committed with firearms (58 percent) than with all other weapons combined. Knives and other cutting instruments accounted for 19 percent of all female murders, bodily force 10 percent, and murder by blunt object five percent. Of the homicides committed with firearms, 65 percent were committed with handguns.

Despite the arguments made regarding how firearms are the devil for making murder so easy, fists and knives gave an incredible showing of ~1/3 the murders. Notably, John Hopkins provides no hyperbole about knives. Weird, that. Notably absent is any implication of the presence of any of those items increasing risk.

This data also highlights clear skew toward some states regarding domestic violence homicide rates. Want to place a bet on where significant portions of the John Hopkins data came from?

For that year, Alaska ranked first as the state with the highest homicide rate among female victims killed by male offenders in single victim/single offender incidents. Its rate of 5.14 per 100,000 was more than four times the national rate. Alaska was followed by New Mexico (2.64 per 100,000) and Nevada (2.28 per 100,000). The remaining states with the 10 highest rates, all of which had female homicide victimization rates higher than the national rate, can be found in the chart below.

Ultimately, we're left with not a lot of support for Johns Hopkins' stance - which makes sense, as they can't really seem to support it either.

I'm all for addressing domestic violence, but let's not lie to ourselves and pretend it's all sunshine and rainbows without firearms, and let's not thoughtlessly share the conclusions of biased sources as if they're meaningful - we've had enough erosion of sense over the last decade.

I think the prophylactic benefit outweighs the inconvenience.

Due to the sheer extent to which this is currently open for abuse (e.g. see prior link), I entirely disagree.

This is a problem common to ERPOs and is part of why they're so strongly resisted - tranpling a person's rights requires extreme diligence and emphasis on restoration of those rights. Putting the burden on the individual whose rights have been wrongfully infringed upon to regain their rights through procedural bullshit is a complete inversion of burden of proof, is a vector for harassment and abuse itself, and approaches enabling bans by incremental erosion of rights.

If there was conclusive data to indicate such measures would impact domestic violence - not just that by firearm - you would at least be able to try and justify making such a change. As it stands, we have only myriad correlations with minimal control for other factors and even then, there's not much to be shown for domestic violence, categorical improvement - just a shift in implement.

With that justification in place, you're still obligated to cover the road to restoration of rights in order to ensure anyone wrongfully impacted is made whole with no burden on their part.

If you want to argue for some Trumpian "take the firearms first" nonsense, don't be surprised when such measures are so strongly criticized and pushed back upon.

Due process is there when the order is originally given and there is a method of redress.

Except it really isn't, hence the entire issue.

Specially since they can petition a court to review their case

You do understand you're putting the burden on the person whose rights are being restricted without them having "had their day", right? That's... kind of the whole problem.

If we had some sort of standard for ample evidence etc. for such civil matters I might be more inclined to agree, but restraining orders can be laughably easy to obtain in places.

It would be more accurate to say the case in question is about whether or not due process matters for such a restriction; that civil findings are insufficient to restricting one's constitutional rights.

Leave it to John Hopkins to misrepresent a "firearms" issue entirely.