Recent comments in /f/philadelphia

GumshoeAndy t1_jd3cgmp wrote

I don't have a lot of updates but, the Sprouts will be next to the Pet Smart and Planet Fitness. I think another club is supposed to take over the old LA Fitness spot. There's a new seafood spot with a liquor license opening just south of where LA Fitness was.

That's about all I know for now. No idea when the apartment construction is supposed to begin.

21

bigassbiddy t1_jd2qhjq wrote

Mass shootings, though scary, account for a very small percentage of gun violence and fatalities. Take 2022 for example, there were a total of 20,138 firearm deaths (excluding suicide).

74 (0.36%) of those deaths were from mass shootings.

The media sure does a great job of highlighting the real issue.

Sources:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/811504/mass-shooting-victims-in-the-united-states-by-fatalities-and-injuries/

https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/gun-violence-deaths-statistics-america/

1

31November t1_jd2ne1q wrote

Cutting the supply of legally available weapons would drain the supply for illegal weapons. It would take a while, but cutting the supply while also increasing the law enforcement efforts to seize from criminals the weapons would drastically improve the situation.

The main issue - mass shootings - doesn’t seem to be lead by Crips and Bloods. Grown ups shooting up night clubs or stores and teenagers shooting ip schools are the main problem, in my experience, that that average person fears the most.

If somebody can source a claim otherwise, I’m receptive to it, but I don’t believe criminals with weapons are the main drivers of firearms related deaths in mass shootings. It seems to me that the mass shootings that make the news are from otherwise law-abiding people who snap in some way.

−2

31November t1_jd2mrfa wrote

I disagree that modern guns are in the Constitution in any recognizable form. The Constitution was written 300 years ago- back then, it was a different ball game. People actually could fight off their government with a militia because the firearms accessible to both civilians and the government were directly comparable.

As I said above, now we are in a middle ground. On one hand, we don’t have a comparable firearm situation (the people already can’t fight their government on an even playing field, as we have already banned the weapons our government has but we can’t, like most (if not all?) fully automatic weapons, helicopters, tanks, etc. that it was be ridiculous for a common person to be able to have, or even for the mega wealthy to have,) but on the other hand, we have too many weapons that society is too dangerous to enjoy living in.

We arbitrarily decided that being able to shoot up a school but being unable to fight a basic police force is the amount of weaponry the Constitution guarantees, but there is absolutely no backing to that claim.

In no world did the Founders envision the modern firearm crisis as the guarantee within the 2nd Amendment. Even if they could understand the physical development of modern weapons, the scale of what weapons are allowed to the common person versus the government is completely different.

Either we have a right to all weapons so that we are on even playing field with the government (again, do you want the rich to be able to buy the high end weapons?) or we acknowledge that limiting firearms is the basis for a healthy society.

Edit: Typo

1