Brandon O’Quinn Rasberry, 32, was shot in the head in 2022 while he slept at an RV park in Nixon, Texas, about 60 miles (97 kilometers) east of San Antonio, investigators said. He had just moved in a few days before.

The boy’s possible connection to the case was uncovered after sheriff’s deputies were contacted on April 12 of this year about a student who threatened to assault and kill another student on a school bus. They learned the boy had made previous statements that he had killed someone two years ago.

The boy was taken to a child advocacy center, where he described for interviewers details of Rasberry’s death “consistent with first-hand knowledge” of the crime, investigators said.

  • _cnt0@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    […] the US which has 3x the amount of guns per capita than Canada does[.]

    Has Canada one third the per capita gun violence of the US? Spoiler: it doesn’t. People bring up that point because it clearly shows that gun ownership does not correlate with “gun crime”. Guns do not cause crime. Guns are a means to an end. Do you want to treat symptoms? Then go ahead and regulate shit out of guns. Or, do you want to treat causes? Then prevent poverty, establish proper welfare and universal health care.

    If you feel the need to label everyone who brings up that point a gun nut, I will have to call you a smooth brain for not understanding the difference between symptoms and causes. But, maybe we can do without the insults?

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Has Canada one third the per capita gun violence of the US?

      Nobody is claiming it is a 1:1 correlation. While guns themselves do not commit crime, they make it significantly easier to commit. Lowering the opportunity cost to commit crime is going to lead to a higher amount of crime plain and simple. Most gun violence is committed by gangs. If fewer of them had access to guns, it would be much harder for them to commit violent crimes since drive by stabbings are not as much of a thing and would not increase as a substitute for guns. We can look at the UK which has similar levels of wealth inequality to the US and has similar rates of knife related violent crime but significantly lower gun violence.

      Should we treat poverty? Absolutely. But that has a hell of a lot more variables in it and is a much bigger task. We can also walk and chew gum at the same time and work on both of them. I’m not even one to ask for significant gun restrictions outside of those in Canada or Switzerland. But if you are looking to decrease gun violence, the most sure fire way is going to be to significantly decrease the number of guns.

      • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        But if you are looking to decrease gun violence, the most sure fire way is going to be to significantly decrease the number of guns.

        The issue that we must face in the USA is that is not remotely possible. They are here to stay regardless of what anyone wants. They number in the hundreds of millions and can perpetually exist in silent, dark places that no one knows about. They don’t announce their presence with beacons or signals, and could be hidden anywhere.

        The way I face that issue is to not worry about it. I take comfort in knowing that violent crime is very rare, and my society is very safe overall, and I carry on doing whatever I want without fear of any of that.

        • daltotron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          This, yeah. The reason that gun laws vary so wildly on a state by state basis is because plenty of cities have implemented pretty strict gun laws at the behest of their citizens, but without overarching federal legislation which is pretty fuckin hard to get passed, nothing ever happens and you can just take in guns by the vanload from a state or two away.

          You’d also probably see some level of civil disobedience or refusal to enforce whatever amount of gun regulation, by the police, by storefronts, by gun-owning citizens, whatever. I expect that would probably go up as you increased regulation. I dunno about federally requiring licensing in that context. The usual response to this is a delusional kind of “WELL THEN JUST ARREST THEM OR FIRE THEM ALL” kind of thing, but, I mean, if even a third of people decide not to conform, or actively oppose, your legislation, that’s a pretty big problem that requires more careful consideration.