A 27-year-old man was killed and 24 other people were shot after gunfire erupted early Sunday morning in Akron, Ohio, during what a police official said was a big birthday party.

Officers responded to 911 calls shortly after midnight, reporting shots fired and multiple victims struck in the area of Kelly Ave. and 8th Ave., according to a statement from the city’s mayor and police chief.

The shooting took place during a “large birthday party” that earlier in the night had more than 200 people in attendance, Akron Police Chief Brian Harding said in a Sunday evening news conference.

In the shooting’s aftermath, authorities found the scene “littered” with spent shell casings that stretched down a whole block, the police chief said.

  • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I know that people hate hearing it, but the violence–specifically gun violence–is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

    This was likely gang activity. Gang activity is driven by a lot of socioeconomic factors; long-term fixes are things like community reinvestment, properly funded education, reducing income inequality, criminal justice reform, and so on. Even things like reproductive rights and access to birth control and abortion help rather significantly here. If you fix the underlying issues that drive gang activity in the first place, then you eliminate most of the violence problem without also affecting civil rights.

    Unfortunately, in the US, one side appears to only have the political will to remove a particular civil right, and the other side wants to obstruct everything and blame it on all “personal responsibility”.

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Doctors treat symptoms while they treat the problem, they don’t just offer you thoughts and prayers. Even if the problem isn’t treatable, they still do everything in their power to control your symptoms.

      Imagine you turned up to a doctor with every bone in your hand broken, only to have them claim “Sorry, we refuse to give you painkillers because the pain is just a symptom. If someone just spends 12 months reconstructing your hand, the symptoms should be mostly gone. I won’t do it (and I’ll staunchly oppose anyone that tries), but that’s the real solution”.

      They wouldn’t just be considered a dogshit doctor, they’d be considered a genuinely evil person.

      So stop with the apologist bullshit. No gun control advocates are stopping you from building your violence-free utopia that you insist will solve everything. The society we have today is fucked up and you need to stop selling them guns.

    • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I know that people hate hearing it, but the violence–specifically gun violence–is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

      This was likely gang activity.

      I’m not sure that makes sense, you’re arguing that gangs, not guns are the problem when every country has gangs but not every country has guns so readily available.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m not sure that makes sense

        The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental civil right in the US, and I believe that access to the means of self-protection is a human right. I think that correcting the underlying issues that lead to gang activity would have more benefits overall than trying to ban a constitutional right.

        While gang activity exists in all countries, countries with fewer social problems and lower economic inequality have far less of a problem with gang activity.

        • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Couldn’t owning more guns contribute to threats in life at a greater rate then they protect individuals?

          • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Let me ask you this - do you believe that people have the right to protect their own lives? Does that right depend on your size and gender?

        • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental civil right in the US

          The pro-gun community has wasted the last 20 years demonstrating that they’re unwilling or incapable of addressing gun violence and they use the second amendment to prevent others from addressing it.

          Eventually, the people you’ve sold out will have no other choice but to repeal it. Pro-gun groups will throw an almighty tantrum but so what? They have no room left to escalate because we already have to listen to them endlessly bleat about guns, we already have to constantly fight them politically and we already live under the threat of being murdered by a far-right extremist with a gun.

          access to the means of self-protection is a human right

          Sure, if you can prove you’re not what we need protection from because you’ve been sold a gun. Nobody is opposing legitimate self-defense – that’s why they’re not banning door locks, burglar alarms and MMA classes because you can’t easily use those things to murder people on a whim.

          I think that correcting the underlying issues that lead to gang activity would have more benefits overall than trying to ban a constitutional right

          Let’s take you at your extremely dishonest word and say that gun violence is 95% social problems and 5% access to firearms.

          Well the overwhelming majority of the actual people you’ve grouped as “enemies” support both gun-control and social policies designed to combat inequality, which addresses 100% of the problem. It’s literally the progressive platform.

          For you to actual have an argument, they would need to support gun-control but oppose progressive social policies, and those people simply don’t exist in significant numbers outside your imagination.

          But what about your “allies”? Well the majority of them support neither gun-control nor progressive social policies, for a grand total of 0% of the problem fixed. This tracks with the last 20+ years of them not solving any of these problems. It’s literally the Republican platform.

          However you’re happy to be dishonest so you present them as a group that only opposes gun-control and sure, they exist, but they’re still only fixing 95% of the problem.

          While gang activity exists in all countries, countries with fewer social problems and lower economic inequality have far less of a problem with gang activity.

          And all of them also have far more restrictive gun laws, making them far more closely aligned with gun-control advocates than pro-gun groups.

  • catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Sounds gang-related. Gun control alone isn’t going to solve this, unfortunately, it’s a socioeconomic problem.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Yeah. It will. Just not the gun control you think of.

      Socioeconomic? Ok, let’s give everyone free education and adequate individual or familial financial means to exercise upward social mobility, that includes everything from child care so parents can go to school and work to health care so they aren’t slaved to the job in fear of losing everything.

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yes please.

        No kind or amount of gun control will fix people turning to crime because of a lack of opportunities. You take your magic wand and make all guns disappear, people who want to harm others will turn to knives. Take those away and they’ll turn to baseball bats, brass knuckles, chains, and metal pipes.

        Social programs are far more effective, and far more achievable too. The gun genie is out of the bottle, taking them away is near impossible. But giving people opportunities is not.

        • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          You take your magic wand and make all guns disappear, people who want to harm others will turn to knives.

          Which would instantly be a massive improvement. Americas crime rates are functionally identical to other wealthy countries, only with a massively inflated homicide rate thanks to sick, stupid and desperate people being able to buy all the guns they want.

          When people try to raise money for cancer research, do you spit in their face and tell them “you’ll never cure all cancer and even if you do people will still have heart attacks and if you cure those too they’ll just die in car crashes”?

          You don’t think it will ever be your life it saves, so you don’t give a shit.

        • otp@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          You take your magic wand and make all guns disappear, people who want to harm others will turn to knives. Take those away and they’ll turn to baseball bats, brass knuckles, chains, and metal pipes.

          Ok, let’s do it.

          Guns are a lot more dangerous than anything else you mentioned.

          Also, how many children are killed in knife accidents every year?..

    • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      So what you’re saying is the killers are poor, so high taxes on bullets could have prevented this.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        You think drug dealers in some of the largest criminal gangs around are poor? What, you checking their tax records? They don’t report black market cocaine sales to the IRS and even if they did the money would have to be laundered. Guarantee at least half those dudes are richer than me with my menial “not crack selling” job.

        Furthermore, “self defense only for rich whities who can afford the tax” isn’t the win you seem to think it is.

        • ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Drug dealing has a pretty extreme income distribution. Half of them earn less than minimum wage, only a couple of guys at the top actually make good money.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Half of em are doing it wrong then, I was nowhere near “the top” and I was making more than I do now legally. You just mean highschool dealers, or are we talking like, actual drug dealers that aren’t just smoking for free because the allowance mommy gives them doesn’t cover their need for weed?

            • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Most of the street-level dealers that I saw in Chicago were not making a lot. I can’t guarantee that they weren’t dipping into their own supply, but they still lived in the same shitty, working-class neighborhood, and they were renting rather than owning. I’m sure someone was making a fair amount of money, but they guys on the corners, or the guys that fetched the drugs for the transaction, they weren’t making bank. AFAIK, they were mostly dealing pot and heroin; probably mostly heroin, based on the baggie sizes.

              • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                Well you have to live where the customers are and where the neighbors don’t ask questions, depending on what you sell and how much will of course vary that. Still, drug dealers have enough money that “tax bullets” isn’t going to stop them.

                • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  You might have to live near your customers, but you don’t have to live in exactly the same shitty circumstances. Based on the places they lived, they weren’t doing a lot better than the people around them that were working shitty minimum wage jobs.