- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Look, everyone! A rational response!
What? You were expecting thoughts and prayers?
Wait what? Rapid policy change in response to gun violence?
Good job
AustraliaAustria!Austria lol. Mozart, not kangaroos.
Schwarzenegger, not Satan.
Eurodeedoos not Dollaridoos.
Bierpartei, not Raygun
Beethoven being born in Germany and Hitler being born in Austria was one of those trivia facts I learned as a 12 year old — or thereabouts; I forget how old I was — that made me question everything. I was obviously, by definition, uneducated at that age but I had just sort of lumped “classical music=Vienna” and “Hitler=Germany.”
It’s obviously an odd fact to blow a kid’s mind and there were many more such moments to come but, for some reason, that factoid was a very effective one on my journey to realizing I didn’t know shit. (A journey I’m still on, even on things I have a degree in or worked on. Nothing teaches you how much you don’t know like learning enough to realize you haven’t even scratched the surface.)
Technically speaking Beethoven was born in Austria. Austrian Netherlands that is (current day Belgium), owned by the Habsburgs.
Or even more generally, he was born in the Holy Roman Empire of Germanic Nations (today Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, parts of France, parts of Poland, Austria, Czechia, Germany) and died in the Austrian Empire.
Whoops, thanks!
Australia also had a pretty strong reaction when it happened there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
America currently going: “la la la la la” while turning its back to the problem.
Austria? well then, gday mate! let’s put another shrimp on the barbie!
Wow kneejerk pseudo-science enshrined into law because one person out of 10,000,000 used a gun to kill someone. Do you think if he had used a car instead you’d see a similar response? why or why not?
Probably the most goddamn idiotic take I’ve fucking seen. And what makes this even funnier is your smug attitude.
Honestly just seems like a run-of-the-mill US red state take. “Muh gunz” is where it stops for them, fuck kids dying, we need more guns. If everyone carried an assault rifle the world would be at peace because there would be a good guy with a gun stopping the bad guy with a gun or something like that. They call it culture as far as I understand.
Fortunately you (unless you are Austrian) have no voice in the matter.
Kinda yes but no? There’s minimum standards for gun control in the EU and thus the “right to bear arms” countries (Austria, Czechia, Poland, Baltic states, Finland) regularly have work cut out for them when the framework gets tightened while the “may issue” and “don’t issue” countries are perpetually in overcompliance.
Ooh, ooh! Pick me! It’s because transportation is infinitely more societally useful than punching imprecise holes in things in one of the most dangerous ways accessible to most individuals! There are lots of reasons to ban or limit the use of cars in various public places, but those types of attacks are a reason to install and use bollards.
Agreed, so we should be building trains which are way faster, safer and environmentally friendly then cars if we actually care about saving lives.
Which is a completely irrelevant point here
Which is a completely irrelevant point here
So if the point isn’t to save lives, what is the point?
The school shooting. Reading the article will help answer these types of questions. I’ll mute you for a while to give you time.
You’re totally right, and this is supported the data! The USA has the least restrictive gun laws of any major developed country but has similar rates of gun violence as all other developed…oh wait, never mind, the USA has by far the highest gun violence rates of any major developed nation.
Our per capita rate of gun violence is comparable to countries like Somalia, Iraq, and Haiti.
And also, car deaths is a huge issue too, and we should restrict car ownership and encourage mass transit and related infrastructure. Making more of our cities pedestrian-only locations protected by bollards, would also make people even safer from both accidental and intentional car deaths.
It’s also way better for the environment and thus, people’s long term health, leading to even higher life spans and better happiness.
i started to respond but there are so many things wrong with your inane hypothetical i quit a couple paragraphs in. just fucking light up some neurons
i started to respond but there are so many things wrong with your inane hypothetical i quit a couple paragraphs in. just fucking light up some neurons
Yikes. It took you multiple paragraphs before you understood how goddamn reactionary the Austrian response is. And while you understand it’s wrong, you refuse to accept it. Liberal to the core. Please do not vote again for everyone’s sake.
what
The thing is, this is mostly reactionary politics. They do this because it’s easy and they can say “see we did something, gib vote”.
Instead phsychological care is being reduced, which would be way more valuable in the long term.
I am not saying gun laws are bad, just that they don’t pose that much of a problem in Austria if it weren’t for psychological issues. Not to speak about alcohol, unrelated to the shooting but ffs thats an issue nobody touches because “culture”-_-. I just mention this because regulating this properly and/or providing psychogical care for alcohol problems, or even aknowledging that it IS a problem, would go way further in preventing harm and accidents.
Not as interesting of an issue of course, no outrageous headlines to be made that don’t negatively impact politicians…
I bet the kid was American /s
I’m glad to see a country do more than ask pointlessly, “what else can we do?”
Oh, Austria!!
I always confuse Austria with Baluchistan!
Isn’t Austria’s military service age lower than 21?
They can just join military and access guns thereI’ll toss this on the mountain of proactive things other countries are doing that the U.S. isn’t.
“serious psychology test”
Until someone from a different political party comes in and turns it into a “political party loyalty test”
That would take a majority vote, not only a single party change. Our system here in austria isn’t perfect (like most of the world), but it is not the broken mess the US have.
Regardless, i’d say the move to stronger regulation is welcome here. The shooter had his guns legally, even tho he was deemed unfit for military service, which screams “regulatory hole to fix ASAP”
looks like there is broad support for making sure that whoever wants a gun to be stable enough to handle them without shooting up a school.
Soooo, we then just go back to handing guns to anyone?
Sorry, but with that attitude we can’t improve anything. How about we just keep it a psychology test?
Do you think that the average person is a killer but the only thing that stops them are the tools they have available?
Should we every single person this planet access to nuclear weapons? Mutually Assured Destruction has kept us save from nuclear war thus far. Clearly this applies not just on the state but on the individual level as well.
🙄 In which we equate Nuclear weapons with individual arms. It’s the mental equivalent of assuming Communism means you have to share your tooth brush.
My point is there is clearly a limit to how many people a weapon can kill before no sane person would allow people to possess it.
Apparently, for you this number is greater than 61 deaths per weapon, seeing as this is the number of people killed in the Las Vegas Mass Shooting.
So, which is it? 100? 1000? 1 million? When is a weapon too dangerous to be available commonplace in your opinion?
No one except liberals attempts to classify individual arms based on some inconsistent and dubious concepts of “magnitude of lethality” that is related to the prowess of a user wielding such a weapon.
Literally every single government on this planet classifies and restricts weapons based on potential of danger/lethality.
Anything from knife types/blade lengths to gun caliber is regulated everywhere. The same applies to chemicals with which explosives/poisons can be manufactured. You can’t order them in any country without filling out forms.
It’s literally the most basic type of risk assessment possible and by far the most effective way to reduce harm.
