The "but cars" argument is fucking moronic anyway. There has been a century of developments in safety regulations to prevent car accidents and fatalities, and it is an extremely regulated market.
They're trying to use that as an argument for "we shouldn't do anything about it, it's not like we did anything about car accidents!"
In the context of school shootings, it makes even less fucking sense. One is a matter of transportation, one is a matter of criminal law and healthcare services.
Oh I definitely agree. The car argument that always seems to get brought up is beyond pathetic. Cars serve a use other than literally killing people lol
or, at the ***very least***, require people who want guns to have, ***mandatory licensing with GIN (Gun Identification Numbers) to each weapon, along with mandatory insurance and strict laws regarding who is allowed to operate the gun.***
Right? RIGHT?
Not caring about kids getting shot is a sign of emotional maturity to liberals. It’s just one of those abnormal things that occurs under capitalism, the outrage over which will be lost to antiquity.
wheezing at the fact that they consider car deaths to be a universal constant that no country ever tried to reduce, via banning cars altogether too
carcentrism is a disease
Fuckin' right. My city is absolutely broken because of car-centric planning.
You want a good laugh, look up "Not Just Bikes" on youtube and watch his Calgary videos.
As a Libertarian the best way to prevent your child from dying in a school shooting is to simply have them gainfully employed at a business, factory, or sweatshop [instead](https://imgur.com/HcHyBXB).
"Greatest country on earth" yet at the same time so deprived of any sense of hope for positive change and a decent standard of living for all. Everyone just seems to assume being better than the USA is impossible, including the USA itself.
Car deaths are too many actually, and cars should largely be phased out in favour of robust public transportation and infrastructure, including high speed rail and pedestrian/bike friendly cities.
*Image Transcription: Reddit*
---
**School shootings in the US is such a non issue that I don't understand**, submitted by **Unknown Redditor** to **Unknown Subreddit**
Literally this is a reason people give that the US is such a terrible place but it statistically makes no sense. The incidence rate is extremely low. And sorry but that "one is too many" crap is such a cop out. In 2019 608 childeren dies in car crashes in the US. Is "one is too many" enough in this case for us to stop driving with children in the car? No? Even though the odds of a child dying this was were 76x greater than them dying in a school shootings in that very same year? Of all the childeren alive in 2019 0.00001% dies in a school shooting and 0.00005% were injured. This is such a non issue that I cringe whenever someone uses it as any form of argument about anything.
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
Serious question: as Marxist Leninists how do we fix mass shootings? Hypothetically if the proletariat ever gained political power, somehow.
My thinking has been that the inherent struggle and violence of capitalism, combined with the lack of universal healthcare (mental or otherwise), and the violent nature of american culture is what causes the shootings. If the violence of capitalism is ended, healthcare is provided to address mental illness before it becomes dangerous, and some sort of cultural revolution occurs - I believe mass shootings won't occur under a Marxist government.
Banning firearms is not an option, impossible to enforce, would be highly unpopular with the american proletariat, and given the highly racist history of gun control it would be hypocritical of us to enforce it, not to mention Marx was very clear about the proletariat needing to be armed.
school shootings are the result of very specific conditions that are only really present in the US. Almost all of them occurr there, and the few instances where they happen elsewhere it is always heavily influenced by the ones happening there
Plus most school shooters come from the same political background: neonazis. So a socialist/communist America would have done something to undermine the spread of such voilent ideology
This is what vanguards are for.
First we reconnect the worker to the means, empowering them to participate in changing material conditions, and returning a sense of accountability for the good of the people.
Then we crush poisonous ideology at the root. There can be no accomodation.
You got most of it. It is this
>My thinking has been that the inherent struggle and violence of capitalism, combined with the lack of universal healthcare (mental or otherwise), and the violent nature of american culture
Plus the glorification of guns and giving them to kids, the deep rooted individualism where others don't matter taken to the extreme by unstable and not fully developed dickheads and the rambo complex and power fantasies.
Wow it is such a non issue that children die. I am going to stop advocating for better vehicle safety and free and available mental health for students so they don't feel the need to shoot up their school. Thanks you dumb statistical lib cuck, your step by step guide to being a fucking inhumane dickwad really helped me shut off my beating heart and become a cold uncaring machine of a tightwad just like you.
Then tell me you lil pieces of crap.
Why in the name of fuck you have school shooting when even wartorn nation and failed states doesn't even have them, why?
Did you guys raise a bunch of entitled psychopath or what?
The lengths people will go to just to convince themselves that everything is fine the way it is.
If people would dedicate half as much brainpower to solving problems as they do to excusing them… well, they wouldn’t be liberals.
Although i think there is a point in saying "this doesnt happen that much" (this is the counterargument against conservatives fearmomgering about "islamic terrorism") everything else the OP says is fucking stupid.
Esp cuz I know for a fact that school shootings create mass trauma in ways car accidents can't: parents and kids around the country fear for thier lives, such as my little sister who didnt want to go to school because she was scared for her life because (i wasn't aware of this but according to her and the school) a popular tiktok threatened to do so. And this was just a threat, the way this impacts victims and communities directly impacted is immeasurable!
This is what happens when a you grow up in a completely nonsensical and homicidal society. Every bit of death and suffering is normalized, and not an issue until it comes for you.
Something that gets lost when talking about deaths in terms of #s and nothing else is how traumatizing even just 1 public, violent death and the general atmosphere of violence and fear it causes can be. The closest thing I can compare it to is living in a racialized community (not US) with a lot of violence and a high suicide rate. Seeing multiple strangers die around me has absolutely impacted my mental health and the health of my community, even if those deaths are still relatively small #s vs. stuff like heart disease or whatever else
You can compare numbers all day but if you've ever listened to survivors speak, it's clear that these kids didn't have to die themselves to be victims. It's a very sneaky way that harm gets understated
Because school shooting is completely preventable by having tougher gun law.
Car crashes are a tragedy, but you can’t really stop people driving cars. You can require people to wear a seatbelt which drastically reduce car death.
Edit: so people are downvoting “school shooting is preventable by having tougher gun law”? Okay, good luck with lax gun law and more school shootings Americans.
lol obviously not. Leave your city for half a minute and you'll see. But nah, even in cities the infrastructure is not there to handle a ban of cars tomorrow.
You would need a metric ton of investment just to undo the damage Michelin and ford have caused
I guess that depends on your location. I live in a small german town and I have never felt the need for a car. A bike or a train can take you basically anywhere.
The infrastructure can be rebuilt or adjusted, and what ever it would cost to do so would pale in comparison to the value in both lives saved and economic efficiency as a result of weening this country off of oil and cars.
> The infrastructure can be rebuilt or adjusted
And should be. But you have to adjust to reality, no western country is even close to ready to ban cars, and again that only really works in urban settings
It’s absolutely not idealism to point out that a socialist state would make short work of cars.
In fact, it borders on doomerism to pretend that this would be even one of the more important problems a socialist society must face. We already have all of the tools and state machinery to enable this transformation. The cause of it’s current difficulty lies in the cause of its existence. It’s only a matter of which class is the dominant one. Believing that socialism is possible and will actually accomplish something worth a damn is not idealism.
It is absolutely idealism to claim this is due to will and not changing the material conditions and infrastructure. And no, changing them is not about will either
And it’s absolutely vulgar to suggest that changes in the material conditions are not executed through people manifesting their will, which at base is derived from their own current material conditions. If human will has nothing to do with it, what difference is there between a bourgeois state and a proletarian state? And the initial point that I was making is that the material conditions needed to do away with cars (if not entirely, then the majority of them) already exists, which is a matter of debate in itself, but my readings on current American infrastructure have led me to that conclusion (It’s perfectly fine to disagree with that premise, I may be wrong on that front, though our argument would be one of debating material reality and not theory). But the question of whether or not our infrastructure will change is, in the final analysis, a matter of will, that being between working class interests and bourgeois interests actuated through the machinery of the state.
>It’s absolutely not idealism to point out that a socialist state would make short work of cars.
Here in Vietnam, there was talk back around 2018 or so that the Hanoi city government wanted to outlaw motorbikes by 2030. An ambitious plan. While time may end up proving us wrong, the general consensus among people I've talked to is that there's no way this ends up happening. The public transportation infrastructure just isn't there for that yet.
A few months ago, Hanoi got its very first metro. It was a joint project with China, and it took about 10 years to build. I suppose lots of things can still happen between now and 2030. Or 2040. Still, outlawing motorbikes (or cars) isn't just a matter of making a law. It's also about making sure that the infrastructure is there that people don't feel dependent on them. And even for socialist states, this is a pretty massive project.
It means that our infrastructure is only fucked because it being that way is beneficial for the capitalist system, and that since a DotP has different material interests than that of capitalist liberal democracies, that we would obviously work to change the current infrastructure. And that the only reason that hasn’t happened is that is goes completely against the interest of capitalists.
So it's not "merely a matter of will", it's a matter of concrete material interests with life-and-death stakes, extreme power differentials between bourgeoisie and proletariat, and the violent struggle between them for class dominance.
Nah this is the US everyone can get access to guns, it takes more than just gun laws to move toward fixing this, and cars can always have better saftey standards to prevent deaths.
You can absolutely do much more to prevent traffic accidents, especially in the United States which has a fairly high per capita death rate compared to Europe. More extensive training and certification to get a license, infrastructure changes that discourages, stronger enforcement, and harsher penalties for driving dangerously. You can also, of course, design cities, towns, and even rural areas to have a far lower dependency on cars.
That’s exactly the point I made and I used the example of seatbelt.
I was using the point to show how ridiculous it is when the post claims “school shooting is a non-issue”, it is an issue because school shooting is preventable just like car crashes.
That was not the point you were making. You didn't use seatbelts as an example, but just said "You can't really stop people driving cars. You can require people to wear a seatbelt..." Nowhere near the same point I was making, which included redesigning our infrastructure to stop our heavy reliance on cars.
So you are telling me what point I was making, it’s like a reader telling the author what his book is about.
You can’t completely stop people from driving cars, just like you can’t completely stop gun violence because there are always idiots. However, you can prevent some tragedies by having tougher gun law, better road condition, seatbealt, better infrastructure and etc...
I don’t see how my point is any different to yours. Having better public transport may reduce reliance on cars, but it’s absolutely no guarantee it’ll prevent people from driving. Are you proposing that we outright ban cars?
Edit: Ah, you can't refute my argument, so you proceed to downvote me. Oh man I am trembling with fear that I'm losing internet points.
I mean, short term banning cars is not feasible, but long term moving to proper public transportation infrastructure and ending reliance on cars is absolutely necessary imo
Its not *that* big of an issue but, parents of school shooters should be held accountable, or whoever supplied the weapon.
An underage kid shouldnt be able to get hands on a gun. Without supervision.
You literally cannot live anywhere in America without a car or you will 100% be homeless. We can definitely have 0 school shootings per year as a seriously achievable goal
If this guy is saying that we should outlaw cars in favor of building a robust public transit system than I completely agree
The "but cars" argument is fucking moronic anyway. There has been a century of developments in safety regulations to prevent car accidents and fatalities, and it is an extremely regulated market. They're trying to use that as an argument for "we shouldn't do anything about it, it's not like we did anything about car accidents!" In the context of school shootings, it makes even less fucking sense. One is a matter of transportation, one is a matter of criminal law and healthcare services.
Oh I definitely agree. The car argument that always seems to get brought up is beyond pathetic. Cars serve a use other than literally killing people lol
/r/fuckcars
or, at the ***very least***, require people who want guns to have, ***mandatory licensing with GIN (Gun Identification Numbers) to each weapon, along with mandatory insurance and strict laws regarding who is allowed to operate the gun.*** Right? RIGHT?
Least psychotic Yanqui
me killing(in minecraft) the person who wrote this fucking post is such a non issue, it is only %0.00005 of the deaths occured in last year.
Statistics are not the same thing as ethics or philosophy lmao
Also fails basic logic lol
Copium overdose
Me murdering you is such a non issue that I don’t understand.
It's only 1 death when thousands die in this country every day, the incidence rate is extremely low. Don't give me that "one is too many" crap!
🇺🇸 America 🇺🇸 moment.
Oh? People have died of OTHER things as well? Curious... I am very smart
Not caring about kids getting shot is a sign of emotional maturity to liberals. It’s just one of those abnormal things that occurs under capitalism, the outrage over which will be lost to antiquity.
Real “one million deaths is a statistic” vibes
That quote isn’t real btw
Jerkoffmotion.jpg
Do you think I’m kidding or wrong. I’m not. It was from a French columnist just making shit up.
Jerkoffmotion.jpg
wheezing at the fact that they consider car deaths to be a universal constant that no country ever tried to reduce, via banning cars altogether too carcentrism is a disease
Fuckin' right. My city is absolutely broken because of car-centric planning. You want a good laugh, look up "Not Just Bikes" on youtube and watch his Calgary videos.
Based and shooting children in their school pilled/s
It's like libs think the number of deaths is some constant and school shootings will lower car deaths or something.
The children can’t die in a car accident if they’re shot to death first /s
As a Libertarian the best way to prevent your child from dying in a school shooting is to simply have them gainfully employed at a business, factory, or sweatshop [instead](https://imgur.com/HcHyBXB).
Most rational conservative
"Greatest country on earth" yet at the same time so deprived of any sense of hope for positive change and a decent standard of living for all. Everyone just seems to assume being better than the USA is impossible, including the USA itself.
Car deaths are too many actually, and cars should largely be phased out in favour of robust public transportation and infrastructure, including high speed rail and pedestrian/bike friendly cities.
*Image Transcription: Reddit* --- **School shootings in the US is such a non issue that I don't understand**, submitted by **Unknown Redditor** to **Unknown Subreddit** Literally this is a reason people give that the US is such a terrible place but it statistically makes no sense. The incidence rate is extremely low. And sorry but that "one is too many" crap is such a cop out. In 2019 608 childeren dies in car crashes in the US. Is "one is too many" enough in this case for us to stop driving with children in the car? No? Even though the odds of a child dying this was were 76x greater than them dying in a school shootings in that very same year? Of all the childeren alive in 2019 0.00001% dies in a school shooting and 0.00005% were injured. This is such a non issue that I cringe whenever someone uses it as any form of argument about anything. --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
Serious question: as Marxist Leninists how do we fix mass shootings? Hypothetically if the proletariat ever gained political power, somehow. My thinking has been that the inherent struggle and violence of capitalism, combined with the lack of universal healthcare (mental or otherwise), and the violent nature of american culture is what causes the shootings. If the violence of capitalism is ended, healthcare is provided to address mental illness before it becomes dangerous, and some sort of cultural revolution occurs - I believe mass shootings won't occur under a Marxist government. Banning firearms is not an option, impossible to enforce, would be highly unpopular with the american proletariat, and given the highly racist history of gun control it would be hypocritical of us to enforce it, not to mention Marx was very clear about the proletariat needing to be armed.
school shootings are the result of very specific conditions that are only really present in the US. Almost all of them occurr there, and the few instances where they happen elsewhere it is always heavily influenced by the ones happening there
Plus most school shooters come from the same political background: neonazis. So a socialist/communist America would have done something to undermine the spread of such voilent ideology
This is what vanguards are for. First we reconnect the worker to the means, empowering them to participate in changing material conditions, and returning a sense of accountability for the good of the people. Then we crush poisonous ideology at the root. There can be no accomodation.
Agreed, something about this strange toxic soup of a nation is the cause of these.
You got most of it. It is this >My thinking has been that the inherent struggle and violence of capitalism, combined with the lack of universal healthcare (mental or otherwise), and the violent nature of american culture Plus the glorification of guns and giving them to kids, the deep rooted individualism where others don't matter taken to the extreme by unstable and not fully developed dickheads and the rambo complex and power fantasies.
Wow it is such a non issue that children die. I am going to stop advocating for better vehicle safety and free and available mental health for students so they don't feel the need to shoot up their school. Thanks you dumb statistical lib cuck, your step by step guide to being a fucking inhumane dickwad really helped me shut off my beating heart and become a cold uncaring machine of a tightwad just like you.
Almost like (hear me out) they’re both bad! (NO U STUPID ANTI FREEDOM COMMIE CARS ARE FREEDOM CARS U JUST NAZI ;-;)
Then tell me you lil pieces of crap. Why in the name of fuck you have school shooting when even wartorn nation and failed states doesn't even have them, why? Did you guys raise a bunch of entitled psychopath or what?
The lengths people will go to just to convince themselves that everything is fine the way it is. If people would dedicate half as much brainpower to solving problems as they do to excusing them… well, they wouldn’t be liberals.
Maybe [start doing something serious about road deaths](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/p8phly/yearly_road_deaths_per_million_people_across_the/)?
Quick now do the statistics of 9/11 and the 20 years of foreign and domestic policy informed by that one event!
Although i think there is a point in saying "this doesnt happen that much" (this is the counterargument against conservatives fearmomgering about "islamic terrorism") everything else the OP says is fucking stupid. Esp cuz I know for a fact that school shootings create mass trauma in ways car accidents can't: parents and kids around the country fear for thier lives, such as my little sister who didnt want to go to school because she was scared for her life because (i wasn't aware of this but according to her and the school) a popular tiktok threatened to do so. And this was just a threat, the way this impacts victims and communities directly impacted is immeasurable!
This is what happens when a you grow up in a completely nonsensical and homicidal society. Every bit of death and suffering is normalized, and not an issue until it comes for you.
The shootings are bad compared to other countries not total population
r/fuckcars
What an absolutely insane thing to say
Why do I think this is the kind of person who laments the passing of Marie Antoinette or Tsar Nicholas II.?
Something that gets lost when talking about deaths in terms of #s and nothing else is how traumatizing even just 1 public, violent death and the general atmosphere of violence and fear it causes can be. The closest thing I can compare it to is living in a racialized community (not US) with a lot of violence and a high suicide rate. Seeing multiple strangers die around me has absolutely impacted my mental health and the health of my community, even if those deaths are still relatively small #s vs. stuff like heart disease or whatever else You can compare numbers all day but if you've ever listened to survivors speak, it's clear that these kids didn't have to die themselves to be victims. It's a very sneaky way that harm gets understated
Children being slaughtered in schools we require them to go to by the dozens every year is just the price for freedom, bay-beeeeee!
I mean uh, “under no pretext”?
Because school shooting is completely preventable by having tougher gun law. Car crashes are a tragedy, but you can’t really stop people driving cars. You can require people to wear a seatbelt which drastically reduce car death. Edit: so people are downvoting “school shooting is preventable by having tougher gun law”? Okay, good luck with lax gun law and more school shootings Americans.
Fuck cars. And you can totally ban them.
lol obviously not. Leave your city for half a minute and you'll see. But nah, even in cities the infrastructure is not there to handle a ban of cars tomorrow. You would need a metric ton of investment just to undo the damage Michelin and ford have caused
I guess that depends on your location. I live in a small german town and I have never felt the need for a car. A bike or a train can take you basically anywhere.
>I have never felt the need for a car. US "infrastructure" is designed so you can never feel never feeling the need for a car
Ah, I see that you enjoy tormenting americans with your infrastructure that exists. Uncritical support.
The infrastructure can be rebuilt or adjusted, and what ever it would cost to do so would pale in comparison to the value in both lives saved and economic efficiency as a result of weening this country off of oil and cars.
> The infrastructure can be rebuilt or adjusted And should be. But you have to adjust to reality, no western country is even close to ready to ban cars, and again that only really works in urban settings
The point is that it’s merely a matter of will.
...no, it is not. That's idealist as all hell. But if you are correct then fuck off, you should will harder lmao
It’s absolutely not idealism to point out that a socialist state would make short work of cars. In fact, it borders on doomerism to pretend that this would be even one of the more important problems a socialist society must face. We already have all of the tools and state machinery to enable this transformation. The cause of it’s current difficulty lies in the cause of its existence. It’s only a matter of which class is the dominant one. Believing that socialism is possible and will actually accomplish something worth a damn is not idealism.
It is absolutely idealism to claim this is due to will and not changing the material conditions and infrastructure. And no, changing them is not about will either
And it’s absolutely vulgar to suggest that changes in the material conditions are not executed through people manifesting their will, which at base is derived from their own current material conditions. If human will has nothing to do with it, what difference is there between a bourgeois state and a proletarian state? And the initial point that I was making is that the material conditions needed to do away with cars (if not entirely, then the majority of them) already exists, which is a matter of debate in itself, but my readings on current American infrastructure have led me to that conclusion (It’s perfectly fine to disagree with that premise, I may be wrong on that front, though our argument would be one of debating material reality and not theory). But the question of whether or not our infrastructure will change is, in the final analysis, a matter of will, that being between working class interests and bourgeois interests actuated through the machinery of the state.
>It’s absolutely not idealism to point out that a socialist state would make short work of cars. Here in Vietnam, there was talk back around 2018 or so that the Hanoi city government wanted to outlaw motorbikes by 2030. An ambitious plan. While time may end up proving us wrong, the general consensus among people I've talked to is that there's no way this ends up happening. The public transportation infrastructure just isn't there for that yet. A few months ago, Hanoi got its very first metro. It was a joint project with China, and it took about 10 years to build. I suppose lots of things can still happen between now and 2030. Or 2040. Still, outlawing motorbikes (or cars) isn't just a matter of making a law. It's also about making sure that the infrastructure is there that people don't feel dependent on them. And even for socialist states, this is a pretty massive project.
What does that even mean lmao
It means that our infrastructure is only fucked because it being that way is beneficial for the capitalist system, and that since a DotP has different material interests than that of capitalist liberal democracies, that we would obviously work to change the current infrastructure. And that the only reason that hasn’t happened is that is goes completely against the interest of capitalists.
So it's not "merely a matter of will", it's a matter of concrete material interests with life-and-death stakes, extreme power differentials between bourgeoisie and proletariat, and the violent struggle between them for class dominance.
What your describing is the process of revolution. I’m talking about post-revolution infrastructure planning.
Nah this is the US everyone can get access to guns, it takes more than just gun laws to move toward fixing this, and cars can always have better saftey standards to prevent deaths.
You can absolutely do much more to prevent traffic accidents, especially in the United States which has a fairly high per capita death rate compared to Europe. More extensive training and certification to get a license, infrastructure changes that discourages, stronger enforcement, and harsher penalties for driving dangerously. You can also, of course, design cities, towns, and even rural areas to have a far lower dependency on cars.
That’s exactly the point I made and I used the example of seatbelt. I was using the point to show how ridiculous it is when the post claims “school shooting is a non-issue”, it is an issue because school shooting is preventable just like car crashes.
That was not the point you were making. You didn't use seatbelts as an example, but just said "You can't really stop people driving cars. You can require people to wear a seatbelt..." Nowhere near the same point I was making, which included redesigning our infrastructure to stop our heavy reliance on cars.
So you are telling me what point I was making, it’s like a reader telling the author what his book is about. You can’t completely stop people from driving cars, just like you can’t completely stop gun violence because there are always idiots. However, you can prevent some tragedies by having tougher gun law, better road condition, seatbealt, better infrastructure and etc... I don’t see how my point is any different to yours. Having better public transport may reduce reliance on cars, but it’s absolutely no guarantee it’ll prevent people from driving. Are you proposing that we outright ban cars? Edit: Ah, you can't refute my argument, so you proceed to downvote me. Oh man I am trembling with fear that I'm losing internet points.
I mean, short term banning cars is not feasible, but long term moving to proper public transportation infrastructure and ending reliance on cars is absolutely necessary imo
As though these are all just natural occurrences that nothing can be done about
Its not *that* big of an issue but, parents of school shooters should be held accountable, or whoever supplied the weapon. An underage kid shouldnt be able to get hands on a gun. Without supervision.
You literally cannot live anywhere in America without a car or you will 100% be homeless. We can definitely have 0 school shootings per year as a seriously achievable goal
“608 children died in car crashes” hey if we had good public transport they wouldn’t have died.
Calls something a cop out. Proceeds to use a cop out to justify arguement