Three day ban….

1    18 Feb 2024 00:16 by u/AngryPraetorian

For a comment suggesting that we should all cut off our dicks because rape happens.

810 comments

59
I mean, all nine were shot by 2 “juveniles”, so take a wild guess who was behind it
47
Nevermind the fact that they were not legally allowed to own guns if they're juveniles. Those gun laws sure stopped that crime. Good job, everyone.
-12
And yet they had access to them... I wonder if we could find a way to make that more difficult. Any ideas?
5
Personally, I'd say we should start at the root of the problem. We have a cultural rot in our inner cities, and we have a massive mental health problem.
-2
The entire world has inner cities. Only in the US are criminals and psychopaths so easily armed.
1
Didn't know Europe didn't have a problem with those same criminals and psychopaths arming themselves as well except with knives, bats, or whatever scary looking thing they can find.
2
Germany has lots of gun owners. Same with Finland. Same with Sweden. Mass casualty events dont happen with legal weapons. They aren't complicit in the slaughter. You can have a system of arms distribution while also not being reckless.
1
We don't have a mental health problem. This shooting was facilitated because two different people had a run of the mill disagreement, and in the heat of the moment, they were able to escalate this run of the mill disagreement involving disrespect and whatever into a shooting match. We are the only country in the world with that. In KC, the rest of the story is: * Police have been on soft-strike for a while because one of their officers was convicted and put in jail for shooting an unarmed minor in a botched home invasion raid. * The state and local governments have all but given up trying to enforce drug laws, gun laws, and anything else. * Municipal government and police have been corrupt since the city was founded, and it's basically always been a lawless shithole.
3
They were almost assuredly gang members. This wasn't just a confrontation between random strangers. These were little thugs doing thug shit. Once again, if gun control laws worked flawlessly, these little shits wouldn't have had guns in the first place.
1
1. There are virtually no gun control laws whatsoever in effect in KC, and none that are actually enforced. There is no mechanism to prevent transfer of guns, no requirements for example for annual inspections, etc. 2. The police have come out and confirmed no gang affiliations at all. This is, as you, say, two random shits who knew each other beefing over disrespect. It escalated because one knew where the other was going to be (parade), they hard words, and it erupted into gunfire. This happens all the time. People such as yourself wish it was just as easy to write off most/virtually all gun violence as "gang related", like organized crime where one party ordered an attack on the other, but the actual on the ground reality is that this is self-organizing chaos that develops from small scale arguments. KC has been a shit-hole for this type of thing for decades, and with the recent soft-police strike, there is virtually no enforcement whatsoever. The actual number of gang members is much smaller than most people in the larger world think. The anti-gang taskforce in KC estimated there are about \~110-150 \*total\* gang members in the KC area. For sure they are involved in lots of crime, but no where near the number that people (such as yourself) push on them. I.e. even in areas with no gang activity whatsoever, there's massive gun violence problems. A great example: Little Rock. One of the most dangerous cities in the country, literally no gangs. Kalamazoo, Michigan, a top 10 dangerous city in the US, no gangs. Passing the gun violence problem off on gangs is just not the case. Vast majority of gun crimes are not mass shootings, and vast majority of gun crimes are not gang related.
2
Criminals don't follow any kind of gun control measures, nor would any amount of laws of any kind prevent or deter them from obtaining and using guns in their crimes and fights. This is not new and most people can easily understand that.
1
This is just totally false. Do a thought experiment: do some countries have less gun crime than the US? Is that random luck, or the result of policy? You are 100% correct that criminals don't follow the law. Agree totally. The two minors involved in this gun crime: they didn't follow the law. The problem is that their were no other criminals made in the process of them obtaining guns: they were the only ones who had to break the law to get the guns they used for this shooting. The entire chain of gun control from the source is loose in the US, and that's why people who criminally engage in shootings can always get guns. It was legal for the gun store to sell the gun to a straw buyer, it was legal for that person to transfer the gun without records, it was legal for them not to report that the gun wasn't in their care. It was legal for the ammo to be sold to a straw buyer. This isn't rocket science: 1. All gun transfers are reported to the ATF for central record keeping. 2. Every gun is registered to a natural person owner, or a government agency. 3. You receive a gun transfer, it's registered to you until it is destroyed by a gun dealer or the police, or you record a transfer to another party. Every year, your local police department comes to inspect your gun, ensure that it is locked up, safe, and accounted for. 4. If your local police can't inspect your gun, it is assumed you illegally transferred it, and you go to jail for 5 years. 5. If you are in possession of a gun that isn't registered to you, you go to jail for 5 years. That's it. The US will go from a homocide rate in 4.x to 5.x per 100,000 rate, to under 1.x per 100,000 just like all the other civilized countries in the world. Gun people can still have guns. You can still have a huge arsenal. You can still open-carry. You can still have all the 2A rights you have today. And people can go to a parade without worrying about being shot in the fucking face.
2
Not enough people who need to read your comment are going to, but very well said! This is the part that seems to go over peoples heads who are staunchly against any kind of gun law reform.
1
Dude, it doesn't go over anyone's head. First of all, everything he said is totally wrong. It is illegal to sell to a straw purchaser, it is illegal to straw purchase, and it is illegal to buy a gun with the intent to give it to someone who isn't allowed to have it. And if you think having the police "inspect" your guns or any of your property every year then there's just no getting through to you. That's bootlicking of the highest order. Why is every "common sense" gun control law totally brain dead? Calling something common sense doesn't make it suddenly not stupid.
1
Lmao, god damnit here I go engaging with an idiot… It may be illegal to do those things, in some areas, because I know for damned sure I can go to a local gun show and buy whatever the fuck I want with no paperwork to say I now own that gun, but like the original comment said, if there’s no laws that allow you to ENFORCE the laws that already exist… The best way to do that is a registry. And routine inspections from LEOs. IF you want to keep all your guns without restrictions on what you can purchase and still have concealed carry; which I fuckin’ do. If you’re afraid of the police, maybe you’re not a “good guy with a gun”. Here’s a satirical article a decade old that’ll probably go over your head ‘dude’. [‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens](https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527) Enough idiot engagement for me. Have fun whatever else rubbish you have to say cause I got better things to do than respond to comments and I’m done wiping my ass.
1
Hmm that's gonna be a no from me dawg. I'm gonna go ahead and keep my guns and not allow cops to reach up my ass for the privilege. That is some next level bootlicking.
0
Lmao nice buzzword
1
No
1
Based. Hey guys just let cops into your home for your yearly compliance search to make sure you don't own anything the government doesn't want you to. How can anyone describe that as "reasonable"? Fuckin bootlickers.
1
You know excluding the more than 50% of those gun related crimes that are done with legally obtained firearms? Lying because of ignorance is still lying.
1
I can't confirm on little rock as I don't live near there but I do live in Michigan. Kalamazoo Michigan does have gangs, they are not as centralized as the larger gangs but they still are there, and are quite a problem even if they don't appear the same yet they call themselves so. A lot of the gun violences in Kalamazoo is from those gangs.
1
Two minors had illegally obtained firearms. So naturally people assume that they obtained the guns from the gang they’re in. Reasonable assumption. It’s not normal for teenagers to have handguns at all and it’s a testament to a fallen culture that these two had guns in the first place. This is aggravating on so many levels. Where did they get the guns should be a priority in this investigation.
1
Yeah! And if murder laws worked, we wouldn't have murder! Why even have any laws if people are going to break them! Brilliant logic.
1
Instead of telling you you're wrong like the other two replies, I'd like to ask you to elaborate. What is a policy change that could be made that would achieve what you want? Do you think it would help stop issues where a confrontation that wouldn't otherwise escalate becomes deadly because guns are readily available in the situation? How? How can we address the cultural and mental health issues as a society? What is a real policy change that you would support?
2
No the one you replied to, but drugs is a decent parrel. It's a cultural and mental health issue. Criminalizing clesrly didn't work. The answer is beyond complex and honestly the only answer I have is a *long*, deeply assisted issue over the course of decades. There's been some sport stars that funneled a ton of money into their former/ current local communities with awful drug/ gang/ crime issues (mainly education, providing a light to a future, have a role model doing it, etc) that tends to have the best effect. Doesn't always work, but tends to be the best option. Notice a lot of times that drugs, violence, etc tend to come from those that have that have lost "hope". The hard part, is "hope" is very unique to an individual and needs more of that approach than a blanket fix. In a country as large as the US (i.e Texas is bigger than most nations), it's a tall order. Mainly getting at there's no "do x will fix it", and the governments approach via throwing money at *one thing* or criminalizing with an awful judicial system... that doesn't work. It's gotta be a small community at a time, and large cities, that's a really tough one. Let alone an entire state or federal. Education (especially public) has gone down the toilet, so that's probably the best place to start.. even that's complex as hell from a federal level. One community at time over many years is better than what were doing now, imo. Social media another? Idk how to begin to fix that one tho. Not trying to argue, just my 2cents to think about. That's all.
15
Why don't we try the same thing that we did with drugs? It seems to really be working.
-11
Hmm do you think sarcasm will help with the gun violence? Any other real policy ideas? Maybe any other countries with less gun violence we could look at?
2
We should be addressing the root cause of the problem. Why are teens suddenly choosing to commit extremely violent acts? I'm in education, so this is a topic that is very important to me, not only because I might be shot, but because I want to help these kids. All of the shooters have come from single parent households, with no father figure in their lives. (The one exception was an emotionally unavailable stepfather) So let's start by trying to understand the connection between not having a father and the mental state leading to mass murder.
1
It's the "abnormal" family structure, not the socioeconomic changes that creates? Sure, not like crime in general increases and poor role models exist in the life of poverty demographics
1
I didn't say anything about "abnormal" family or otherwise, just that if young teens don't have a father figure in their lives that it's harmful and seems to have a connection to school shootings. Also, socioeconomic factors don't seem to have a connection to mass shootings, because not all of the shooters have been from struggling households. It seems that it's more lack of emotional support from those around them.
1
Respectfully this still isn't really a policy idea. I'm not doing this rhetorically as a way to make a point or argue. I just actually want an answer about any one thing that you would change that would address the issue. I'm not asking for a complete fix either. Surely no one thing would fix the problem. What is one law you would change or program you would have the government pay for?
1
Honestly, I'm always a skeptic on government intervention, so I see that as a last resort, a kind of Hail Mary effort that's doomed to failure. It would be better to work on building better social interconnect, more community based activity. The violence is caused by a feeling of lack of emotional support or the idea that no one cares for or about the individual. I believe that the only way to solve the problem is by removing the isolation and providing emotional support to the individual by other individuals. One school that was experiencing extreme levels of bullying and criminal behavior from their students organized a group of around 60 fathers to come into the school in shifts to act as mentors and emotional outlets for the students. Negative behavior dropped almost immediately. I don't think that there is one solution to this issue, and each community will have to work out what best fits their needs, because this is a problem that individuals are facing, not institutions. Trying to ban or restrict the outcome rather than fixing the source is like trying to grab the wrong end of a baseball bat. Not only will it not work, but it will only result in more problems.
1
This all seems very hand-wavy and dangerously close to "we should do nothing" You say that each community will have to work out what best fits their needs, but don't really offer a way for them to do that. If the volunteer father figure model worked then let's do that. Government or otherwise we should organize interventions like that with communities at schools across America. That is something you can advocate for that is at least an actual action that could be taken. The government could reach out to communities and help them set up these events in a hands-off way that lets the community figure out the best way to do it for them with minimal guidance. Would you support that?
1
Part of the reason they are doing it is because it's so fucking easy to obtain a firearm.
1
Except it isn't, it's illegal for them to have one.
1
.... ignoring that more than 50% of the guns used in gun crime are obtained legally? Gun control would reduce those numbers even further.
1
All mass shootings have been committed by Democrats...does that mean banning all Democrats from owning guns would stop mass shootings? Obviously not.
1
Strawman argument. as that isn't something you can prove?
1
Look at the manifestos that the shooters put out. And it's the same argument that you're putting out.
1
It isn't the same argument child. My argument is that gun control works. Your argument is a logical fallacy. Enjoy your guns. But make no mistake guns are the problem always have been. And do those manifestos line up with the actions those people took in the past or is it a line the media is feeding you.
1
An inanimate object (that has been in daily use for hundreds of years) is controlling people to go out and commit acts of violence? How about the problem being society deciding that it was a good idea to raise children without fathers? And personal attacks always indicate that someone is losing an argument.
1
>And personal attacks always indicate that someone is losing an argument. As is moving the goalposts. (Example: >How about the problem being society deciding that it was a good idea to raise children without fathers? ) And did I claim it was forcing people to go commit crimes? No I said that more than 50% of the crimes committed with guns obtained those guns legally.. yall really wanna paint me in a bad light while having no actual defense for your argument besides "but criminals don't listen to the law"
1
"But make no mistake, guns are the problem, always have been." This wasn't you? It's hard to gaslight when it's in print.
1
And is that claiming that guns are making people violent? Reading comprehension is horrid nowadays
1
It's the guns, but it's not the guns fault? Oh, please do explain, since I'm so illiterate. I'd like to see the mental gymnastics there.
1
Can you commit gun violence without a gun? No. Please do tell me where I said it's the fucking guns fault you actual child
1
Language language! And keep the personal attacks out if you want to sound credible. So, I've already directly quoted you to you before, but "it's the guns always has been," does seem to mean that it's the guns, yeah? Like if the guns went away then the violence would magically evaporate! We *definitely* wouldn't have poison gas attacks like Japan or serial knife murder like both Japan and England.
0
I said they were A problem. Again reading comprehension is horrid nowadays. >Like if the guns went away then the violence would magically evaporate! We *definitely* wouldn't have poison gas attacks like Japan or serial knife murder like both Japan and England Which all required extensive fucking work on the behalf of the terrorists. How we have guns now makes it just easier to get a firearm and shoot people rather than do a gas attack.
1
*Uses sarcasm* Someone retorts with sarcasm *Complains about sarcasm*
2
*Uses sarcasm* Someone retorts with sarcasm *Complains about sarcasm*
7
We could look at the US prior to the 80’s. Guns have been a major feature in American life since the beginning of the nation. Yet the violence didn’t really kick off until the 80s; at least in terms of mass shooting events. Could have something to do with the import of drugs into the inner cities by the Federal government that destroyed the dynamic of the nuclear family, especially in minorities. Or maybe the mass prescriptions of MAOIs and other psychotropic drugs to children, especially young boys, because the Department of Education was formed and standardized the education system around girls which created the myth that boys who couldn’t pay attention to the boring ass lectures needed to be drugged into submission. Or maybe it’s the removal of Christian values and practices under the idiotic misinterpretation of our Freedom OF (not from) religion.
2
Personally I would also add influence from media like news reporting on these tragedies constantly and also the reclassification as well the the very broad definition of a mass shooting adding to the skyrocketing numbers. Like the past events of when news stations actively reported on suicides which lead to even more suicides back in 2000, who's to say with massive media coverage on these shootings that they aren't creating copycats who want to have their names released and become infamous or inspire people for ways to "get back" at the people who wronged them. Those mass shooting numbers are also very scary since the classification of what is a mass shooting can go by two different definitions, one from the FBI which is just any person who is actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people a populated area. You know, like gang violence in the cities. Or the definition that the media uses when it can of mass killings of 3 more more fatalities in a single incident. The latter which was put in place by the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012 and used by everyone who created the skewed shooting numbers, because why is it that the media reports shootings like an hourly occurrence but when one actually happens they stick to the story for at least a week?
-2
There's so much wrong with this I can't even begin to describe it in the short free time I have. Suffice to say: 1.) ADD and ADHD are very real things that have axrual effects on people. You being ignorant of that doesn't change it. 2.) Your pet religion being foisted on others does not lead to net benefits for society. If you want evidence, see pretty much all of human history. 3.) Freedom of religion necessitates freedom from it. This is not difficult to understand. Your superstitions are not anyone else's business or problem.
1
So you're just going to ignore all the plane hijackings in the 70s and organized crime of the early 1900s or the bandit gangs of the western settler period... and blame everything on kids not having dads? Not on the economic policies that strained the families in those cities, which mostly affected poc, or how since Reagan the financial plan has been to tax the poor more heavily and the targeting of welfare programs because of the strawman "welfare queens", or the tax breaks we gave to mortgage holders, or the lobbying power we give to corporations and pacs. No one is attacking your right to worship Christ, but every time other religions try to worship in public, it's "OMG, we are under attack. " I hate to break the news, but that constitutional right also protects other religions (or lack thereof) from you.
2
🎶Do you wanna build a Straw Mannn??🎶 Plane hijackings are not mass shootings. Racketeering, bootlegging, smuggling, etc are not mass shootings. I never said there wasn’t crime before the 80s. I said the mass shooting problem wasn’t a problem until then. There IS a direct correlation between fatherlessness and violent crime. The mass shooting phenomenon arose at the same time as increased fatherlessness, massively increased psychotropic drug prescriptions (many of which have side effects like “violent impulses, psychosis, thoughts of suicide, etc.), and removal of religious materials and practices from public education; as well as a rise in atheism and agnosticism. Poor people today have considerably more than poor people of the early 1900s and before. In 1981 it was estimated that 42% of the world lived in abject poverty. By 2013 that number had fallen to 10%. So if anything, people have gotten wealthier since the 80s. What other religions are being “attacked for public worship?”
1
[The following mass shootings are the deadliest to have occurred in modern U.S. history. Only incidents with ten or more fatalities by gunshots, excluding those of the perpetrators, are included. This list starts in 1949, the year in which Howard Unruh committed his shooting, which was the first in modern U.S. history to incur ten or more fatalities.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting) Maybe try looking before you make a claim.
2
That’s a link to the Orlando Nightclub Shooting. Man, that’s embarrassing. Imagine trying to look informed on shootings and you end up shooting yourself in the foot…
1
Oh no, my phone jumped, and I'm human. [here since you're still too idiotic to look.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States)
2
Yes I was already on this page. Ignoring the fact the Wikipedia is updated by Left wing activists. There were 2 before 1966 that weren’t attributed to politics or personal feuds. 1966 was the University of Texas Tower shooting and the Rose-Mar College shooting. The tower shooter, Charles Whitman, wrote in his suicide note that he was experiencing “unusual and irrational thoughts”. There has been speculation that he may have been a subject of the MK Ultra project. The Rose-Mar shooter was a copycat. In the 70’s you had the Olean school shooting, the CSU Fullerton shooting (the shooter there was a paranoid schizophrenic), and the Cleveland Elementary School shooting (you can read about that nut job if you like). Everything else in the 70s was related to organized crime or family violence. Enter the 1980s. There are suddenly way too many to list out as I just did for the 60s and 70s. Pretty sure you just got owned by your own source.
1
"Left wing activists" why don't you just go use conservapedia if all you want is an echo chamber.... They defined the term in 1949. there is no data for this type of crime before that. So you trying to move the goalposts is telling. You said it wasn't a problem before the 80s. There are several examples right there that you are not being accurate. If you can't accept a correction and admit you're human then there is no point to continuing this farce.
1
No no. I’m fine with your echo chamber in this instance. Again you are straw manning. I said it wasn’t a problem until the 80s. I didn’t say it never occurred until the 80s. If someone has a beer a couple of nights a week, they don’t have a drinking problem. If they down a fifth of whiskey every night, now they have a drinking problem. There were 5 instances between 1960 and 1980 that would fit the framework of a modern mass shooting. There were 6 from 1988-1989.
1
"Murder wasn't a problem before the 1980s" -you This is all I see when you try to dismiss clear examples. Bye Felicia
1
Are you okay? You seem to be reading things that were never written. Are you schizophrenic? Do we need to call in a wellness check?
1
Rates of gun violence have steadily been declining other than a brief jump due to Covid. The government keeps redefining what is a “mass shooting” and the media just started covering it more. Maybe we should stop changing the goalposts because the numbers are getting better, not worse.
1
"It's been a thing for so long that we shouldn't change it" that is your argument? Really? Pathetic.
1
Are you fucking retarded? I’m sorry, I’ll engage in a debate with anyone who can grasp even the most basic point of an argument but this one is just beyond the pale. I said that guns have always been around but mass shootings weren’t really a thing until the 1980s. And from that you got, “It’s been a thing for so long that we shouldn’t change it.” Please tell me you’re a bot.
1
Oh I was just assuming from your other replies that your reply was just as braindead. Sorry go on tell me all about how gun control doesn't work while ignoring all of the studies done on exactly this subject.
1
You mean like a country where the government can throw you in jail for expressing an opinion on the internet? No thanks.
0
Why do you guys always have some dumb shit like this to say? It was a question. You are allowed to say "there are literally no countries with less gun violence that I would want to model our policy off of because those countries all have more restrictions on speech. I'm not recommending anything about speech here so I don't know what you're on about other than "America best - must say vague thing that is bad about other countries unga bunga"
-9
A crack head without a gun is way better than a crack head with a gun.
6
A crack head wouldn't have a gun, cause he sold it for crack minutes after he stole it.
1
Why would he sell the gun instead of robbing the dealer like a normal crack head
2
I’m sorry. I grew up in a really shitty neighbourhood. The drug dealers in our neighbourhood were not from the area, always traveled armed, always had another with them. Trying to hold up a crackhouse is equally dumb. Also going to result in you either dying, or being cut off. A beating might be considered instead, but I didn’t know many who actually cared about their clientele.
1
I live in a border town, we get tons of drug traffic. Nobody sensible goes after the dealer. we’ve had at least two drug homicides in the past 3 years. One was someone who got shot by their dealer within a quarter mile of the police station, the other was a couple that shot their dealer and left him in a hotel pool cause they couldn’t afford the drugs. Most crackheads learn to avoid violence, considering dealers don’t care about their clients.
1
You must have shitty crackhead. In my area it's the dealers that always feared us. I'm clean now but robbing the dealer was like a pass time for many of us.
2
There is hilarious irony in your comment
1
I think the comment you're replying to went over your head.
-3
Nope. I just don’t agree with comparing drugs to guns 🤷🏽‍♀️
2
Well, of course you don't. If you did, it would make your entire point fall apart. You're obligated to be against it.
1
👌
1
Tell you what, you just don’t EVER buy a weapon of any kind ok? That would make me feel much better
-2
Anything to help you sleep boobie.
1
Severe punishment eradicated much of the crack epidemic.
1
Replaced by oxycodone and krokodil. Sideways movement
1
Nah. Those are for white people and you proved my point. We don't harshly imprison for those, hence the problem.
1
Racist and shallow argument
1
Racism exists. Certain drugs are culturally abused by certain races and not others. Ban all the guns and put people who choose to break the law in prison for 15 years like we did with crack and watch gun violence fall dramatically.
1
Racism exists and you're racist. Only black people use cocaine? Putting people in prison for drug use works? The War on Drugs was a good idea? Really? Ban all guns and watch firefights break out all across America. Just like happened with the War on Drugs, do you think people are going to be going quietly? *Especially* because both sides are going to make it an idiological fight. Use common sense.
0
Common sense says to remove all guns. If people insist on using guns against the law, good. We can put them in prison for life where they belong. The War on Drugs worked against crack cocaine. It didn't against marijuana.
1
The only reason it "worked" was because there are easier ways to get alternative drugs. Go through history, look at all weapon bans and you'll see two things that are always constant. 1, they were promoted as being for the People's benefit, and 2, they always were about stripping the people of control or means to resist oppression. If you treat the symptoms and not the cause (lack of emotional support and stability) then you can't get rid of the symptoms. Both Japan and England are facing epidemic levels of fatal stabbings. The violence won't go away until the source is taken care of. Don't try to push your ideology on others if your own idea of things is screwed up enough to think that the War on Drugs was a good idea.
1
Japanese people are oppressed without handguns? Lol, no. It's harder to kill dozens of kids with stabbings than with a handgun. The police and citizens are more likely to stop a guy with a knife than a guy with a gun. The War on Drugs had both good and bad elements. It eradicated crack dealers substantially.
1
Keep in mind that the war on drugs predominantly targeted communities of color. A war on guns would as well.
1
No, it wouldn't. It would alleviate communities of colors from allowing drug gangs the tool they need to function. Wealthy white people are generally more apt to obey the law. If guns were no longer legal, they would turn them in.
1
Most gun violence happens in economically disadvantaged urban neighborhoods, and these areas are predominantly home to people of color. You don't think that the police are going to step up their (already) unequal enforcement of the law in these neighborhoods?
1
The police don't police these neighborhoods, that's why crime is such a huge problem there.
1
When your boss lets you out of the terrarium, lets us know…then we can start filling you in on what real life is and how that all works
1
Genuinely what are you talking about?
2
We have laws against that. Didn't work thus time won't work in the future. We need more guns everywhere so this can't happen
1
How would more guns have helped in this situation?
1
Cuz if it wasn't a gun free zone and all the law abiding z Citizens had guns. This scumbag would not have got there to commit this crime
1
We should probably make it super duper double illegal.
-2
Gun control is more than just making possession restricted, but also (at lesser many people) advocate for required gun safety courses, which would include stuff like how you need to properly store firearms.
1
Frankly, I remember in California during a hearing about some gun control laws, the judge asked the state DA how long it took for people to get guns, the judge then revealed that he was waiting on his permit for over 6 months... Frankly, that proves that "gun control" laws do not have safety in mind, but instead "banning" in mind.
5
Gun control is more of a bandaid that goes on top of another bandaid that is sitting on top of another bandaid, and eventually on a festering wound that has gotten infected long ago. No amount of gun control is going to fix the problem as even if guns are outright banned it's just going to move to knives, then bats and hammers, pipes and planks, so on and so forth until even words are banned because they hurt people's feeling... Oh wait, that's already happening. The only thing gun control really does is disarm the law abiding citizens as criminals and the systems that facilitate the criminals continue to cause mayhem because as massive surprise CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW LAWS. Instead of asking to remove the smell of the infected wound (gun violence) with more bandages we instead ask why there is a wound to begin with and work to actually stitch it up so it doesn't get worse with bigger problems.
1
>No amount of gun control is going to fix the problem as even if guns are outright banned it's just going to move to knives 2A nuts are fucking insane. Yeah bro, you can take up a window position and fire on an entire crowd of innocents with a knife, bat or hammer. How stupid can you be? > The only thing gun control really does is disarm the law abiding citizens So test cases like... Every western country with gun control is just fake and made up to you? Facts don't care about your feelings, have you heard? Honestly I hope your kid is at the next Uvalde so you can get some perspective on the matter.
1
You’re the problem stupid
1
No, guys like you are. You really are.
1
Well snow monkey. I didn’t wish death upon anyone’s children. So there’s that. Put a gun in chair. And leave it alone. Come back in 1000 years and it won’t have hurt a fly. Guns aren’t the problem. People are.
1
Guns are the problem because people have unfettered access to them. And the people who aren't don't prevent the people who are. This is why we can't have nice things. Seriously, the people who demand unfettered access to guns are just as much the problem as people who actually pull the triggers unnecessarily. Put the guns in a chair and throw them both into the smelter, that's the only way to be sure they don''t harm an innocent person.
1
I see we have found the echo chamber. Law abiding citizens have easier access to guns. And don’t get it twisted. Take them all. I don’t care. But if one person anywhere has one. I want the other one. It’s well past a thing that can be reigned In. It’s about the only thing standing between the people and complete tyranny. And maybe you’ve noticed. Even with guns. That’s not going great.
1
You feel tyranny? How? I agree, we should take just about 99% of them. Nobody should really be trusted to unilaterally decide to end my life so easily. Even most police officers have no real need for a gun. The tyrants in our system are voted out. Our Senate has more power than the President. The crisis we are facing is deliberate propaganda from foreign powers manipulating us on social media. Russia, for example, believes that we can be goaded into a race war. China is dumbing us down for generations to come with Tik Tok stupidity. Australians turned in most of their guns after they came to their senses. We still have guys like Gov. Abbott offer prayers and condolences as the only solution to Uvalde.
1
I think you just answered your own question. We don’t disagree as much as you might think. But then there’s human nature and common sense to contend with. People will be people. No matter what. If you wanna see the true nature of people. Take two starving people. Truly starving. And toss a sandwich between them. Then watch what happens. Maybe they half it and both eat. But most likely. Someone’s getting fucked up. And someone’s getting a sandwich. Long way around the fence to say that people kinda suck. Inherently I think. Guns are a problem. But the earths only enemy is a bigger problem.
1
Ban the forks. Let’s solve the obesity crisis as well.
1
Again, your comment supports the status quo and isn't a serious debate. How would you solve the issue?
1
I can make a bomb for about $8 worth of shit from Home Depot. Would that be better?
1
Wow. Wishing death upon the child of an "ideological opponent". That will totally convince them, and not polarize them against you even further. You get more flies with honey than you do with nuclear waste. God. Why do so many people think that being an inhumane scumbag will do any good for the world. You realize that being hateful will involve more hate. And it's typically the people on your "side" that always preach of the dangers of hate, and are always the first to point out when the other "side" is hateful. And before you try to sort me into a little tribal box so that you can insult me better, No I'm not a Republican, and no I'm not an "Enlightened Centrist". I'm just tired of the divisiveness and polarization that both parties purposely contribute to as to keep each other perpetually in power. It's called manufactured outrage and manufactured consent. You're contributing to the problems our political system is facing with your vitriol and hate. But have fun convincing absolutely no one that you are right with your toxic attitude and rhetoric.
1
Why is murder illegal then? After all, criminals don't follow laws right? We shouldn't even have laws right? Or...is it possible your argument is terrible and gun control does save lives, we just never enforce anything? HMMMM
1
Excluding the fact that it being illegal does actually discourage many people. You people are fucking morons
1
>CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW LAWS. Excluding the more than 50% of criminals who obtain their firearms legally? Not knowing what your talking about is a helluva drug
1
Thats already a thing numb nuts. Each gun comes with a lock, a case and ive had many gun store employees give me advice on how to store it.
27
Here is my question, are they gonna track down how they got those guns and go after the entire chain? nope. I bet though you will hear people complain nonstop about gun laws not being enough. When you enforce the law, then we can talk about the issue, until then enforce the law.
1
This is the real issue, the fact that it’s damn near impossible and useless to do that. It’s the same reason how there will always be another drug dealer.
-8
Yeah, no gun laws have worked in any other country that's tried it, that's why there's school shootings every other month in basically every country.
-3
That’s not my point. Having guns means you have you school shootings. The amount of saturation of weapons in the US means anyone with a will has a way. Finding the where this gun came from doesn’t mean shit when it could come from a million another places.
1
Yeah, so no point trying to restrict the number or places the guns can be kept, better to just say "oh well" and hope your kids don't get gunned down. After all, the gun could come from a million other places if nothing's restricted at all
1
Yup, that's their game plan. Doing nothing has worked so well so far so might as well continue to do nothing, right?
2
That's literally a facet in conservative circles. If the solution you propose doesn't fix the problem entirely, it's not worth fixing.
1
School shootings are new. Guns are old. Something has changed in our society, and it is not the guns.
1
If a gun is used for a crime that was stolen from jimmy and jimmy never reported it? He should be charged for providing a weapon. We need strict liability on the owner of a weapon for any crime the weapon is used to commit. If a gun is stolen out of a car then the owner needs a hefty fine for supplying a gun to a criminal. Some things need to be fleshed out in that conversation but there are 1000’s of legal weapons that become illegal weapons every day because gun owners treat their guns like I treat my water bottles, carelessly.
5
That's a false, delusional and closed minded way of thinking. There are more countries without school shootings than there are. Typical "happens here all the time. Must happen everywhere else" line of thinking.
-4
I know, I'm not American, I'm making fun of the... I assume Texan that is saying there's no point stopping guns because there's already gerns
6
You know euro’s weighing in on american issues is just white noise at this point. Your solutions only work in places thats small population is raised to be cowards. Dont forget to renew your kitchen knife license.
1
All the cowards that came running when America invoked Article 5?
1
Hahahahahahaha, but in Fahrenheit
1
You need to put /s after a sarcastic comment or Redditors will question it. The reason being is that the trolls will same the same thing but mean it.
1
Yeah, I really shouldn't underestimate the ability for gun nuts to do mental gymnastics to justify keeping their perspective unblemished.
3
So how come Canada, Mexico, and most of Scandinavia, who are all allowed to have firearms or, in the case of Mexico, just own them; why don't these places have the school shooting we do? The Philippines makes more ghost pistols than any other place in the world. No school shootings comparable to the USA. Hell even Russia, where you can easily get a gun - no school shootings on the level of the USA. Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary. It's a long list of countries that allow it's citizens to have guns that coincidentally also don't have our level of school shootings. People in these countries ( except perhaps Russia) are not living in a dictatorship where the SS guards are telling them how to live life.
1
Mexico has a huge gun violence problem. They are literally legally fighting with the US courts about trying to sue gun manufacturers for circumventing Mexican gun laws, accusing manufacturers of knowingly selling to sources that will then illegally transport them to Mexico.
1
They're being sarcastic
1
You forgot the /s
1
Yeah, I honestly didn't think it was needed given the "shootings in every other country" bit. 😔
5
It's only impossible because they don't ever try because they think it's impossible. I'm fully pro second amendment. I think most gun laws (especially older ones) are designed to be enforced on a specific class of people.
1
Poor and/or minority, yeah.
1
The problem is a lot of the time the supplier was a legal purchase. When the laws say you can legally sell guns to mentally ill people, this kind of shit is inevitable.
1
Every gun purchase from an ffl has an fbi background check behind it already. Ya want to add a psychological exam to it as well? What if im feeling a little sad that week are my 2nd amendment rights void?
1
Um, if you're feeling depressed then your guns should absolutely be removed from the home. That is absolutely something that can and and does and should happen.
2
No
1
The government is not a nanny state, it doesn’t have your best interest at heart and nobody it sends cares. The person in question should get the help they need as they see fit because they should be a responsible adult. And i said it was just a low point for a week.
2
Adding to that, I don’t see how my rights are subject to the fact that others cannot respectfully and legally exercise theirs. In other words, I do not have to answer for other’s crimes.
1
You wear a seat belt because of all the people who didn't bother to. You drive the speed limit because some people go 50 in a school zone. We are all subject to laws set for others. It's part of the simple compromises of society. You'll find similar regulations in any space that works with guns regularly, like military bases or police stations.
1
Good news. There are laws that forbid minors, like this kid, having a gun. There are also laws against killing people, illegal use etc. Your argument suggests I should wear a bullet proof vest everywhere. Further, the difference is I don’t drive 50 in a school zone because others are in danger. That’s always the standard, I have rights until they encroach on others. My exercising rights is not encroaching on others. I would argue that me wearing a seatbelt is something the government really has really stepped outside their purview on. Sort of like making motorcycle riders wear helmets. It affects no one but me so why should people be compelled to wear them? Having said all of that it’s dumb not to wear either and you should but it’s not really affecting others. And before you mention it Insurance actuary tables are not something I consider when figuring out if it is my right to do or not do.
1
>There are laws that forbid minors, like this kid, having a gun. They're clearly inadequate since incidents like this aren't even that rare. What other societal issues do you suggest we give up on? Driving accidents? cancer? >have rights until they encroach on others. My exercising rights is not encroaching on others. Misusing or mishandling guns ABSOLUTELY impacts others. Any gun safety training should teach you this, and any responsible gun owner should understand it. >wearing a seatbelt is something the government really has really stepped outside their purview on. Lots of right leaning types think this, and they're demonstrably wrong. Seat belts improve the safety of everyone, not just the person wearing them. A car with three secured passengers is endangered by a fourth unsecured one who can disrupt the driver or injure the others if they're jostled. This kind of half-thought-out anti-government schtick is the reason libertarians are always the biggest victims of their own deregulation fervor (and it's also why all the anti-seat belt activists end up dying).
1
You’ve not demonstrated I’m wrong at all. In fact, you’ve made my point. Wishcasting a law that will keep this from happening is the logical fallacy that you’ve committed to. They are rights (there is a definition) and they are my rights. When other people violate people’s rights and their rights are taken away. No law is going to eradicate bad behavior and I do not have to answer for those who didn’t consult me before acting like a jackass. Your argument that misusing or mishandling guns affects others is not a point of contention. Of course, that harms others and people should not do this and further should take classes to learn proper gun safety. Life is not without its dangers. Thinking that you can ordain some law that will alleviate those dangers will never take the danger away nor totally eradicate them. The answer that you don’t want to hear is that our country needs to foster a culture of respect for each other and proper responsibility for our own actions. Once again, because a certain portion of our culture loves being cavalier with their rights isn’t something I feel obliged to have to answer for. Even if laws are passed people choose to follow them or not except your rights have been infringed. It never will be different.
1
I do know that a law can be a teacher and maybe this is where you are coming from. Children and innocents have to be considered for sure. But you have to be careful.
1
>No law is going to eradicate bad behavior and I do not have to answer for those who didn’t consult me before acting like a jackass. Yes you do. Every time you stop at a stop light, you do. >Of course, that harms others and people should not do this and further should take classes to learn proper gun safety. These classes need to be mandatory and the responsible behaviors need to be backed up with enforcement. Otherwise it's an honor system and irresponsible people will ignore it. >loves being cavalier with their rights isn’t something I feel obliged to have to answer for. You ARE answering for it. You answer for it with mass shootings, mass suicides, gang violence, and the increasing draconian security measures we put everywhere to put a bandaid on the problem. >Even if laws are passed people choose to follow them or not except your rights have been infringed This is an argument against all laws for everything. Imagine if we treated dynamite the same way.
1
I stop at a stop light for others. I learn gun safety for myself and for others. I don’t mind making people take gun safety courses. It is still a rights violation, mind you. We are talking in circles because you know I am right and I know you care about the consequences. I do too. The best you can do is make a law. People will choose to follow it or not. Thank goodness we had Founders that realized the government would regulate you into the ground or we would all have less liberty than we do.
1
>I don’t mind making people take gun safety courses. It is still a rights violation, mind you. And there it is. You have the right to the gun but the training is optional. This guarantees the untrained and incompetent will have guns. There's nothing sane about that. It's magical thinking, a chosen crisis. > Thank goodness we had Founders that realized the government would regulate you into the groun Look up the founders and gun control sometime. They confiscated guns constantly. It's only in the last 30 years or so that the conversation has shifted so far that any obstruction to gun ownership became unacceptable.
1
Have a good day. I’m sorry that you will not be able to take my right away.
1
You are trusting the judgment and honor of people who are by definition mentally ill. I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way. Someone with signs of mental illness needs to have their guns removed. Magical allusions to a sacred ancient text do not change that.
1
Thats a door that leads to exploitation especially now when every buddy and their dog has some kind of mental boo boo ancient text or not.
1
>when every buddy and their dog has some kind of mental boo boo You're really not selling me on this whole "armed society" idea.
1
I thought calling it a boo boo would show the sarcasm at the statement but i shouldve known that wouldve flown over your head.
1
It’s why I don’t understand why mass shootings are even on the news. We are a gun loving country. We are taught at a young age guns solves problems. Of course people are going to shoot each other. It’s part of gun culture. And I fully embrace it. Talk shit and find out. People would be much nicer to each other if they realized being a dick could get you shot.
1
See, that's a blatant violation of the fifth amendment. And I quote: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or *property* without due process of law." That means you need to get a criminal conviction for such a thing to happen, and unless you want to make being depressed a crime, then there's not exactly much you can do, is there?
1
There are certain tools and implements that pose a public danger if they're misused and require higher standards to own and operate. Things like dynamite, deadly virus samples, nuclear material, and guns. Minimum standards of behavior and respect are required to mitigate the public risks, and these standards can't be on an honor system because dishonorable people won't bother. None of this is in conflict with the constitution. It is just sanity. the founding fathers confiscated guns from civilians all the time because of the risk posed.
1
It is in conflict with the constitution, you've just been misguided and misled with regards to your own rights. Don't let anyone take them from you more than they already have.
1
What's being stolen from me is the ability to go to public spaces without the expectation of being near a shooting. This is being stolen from ALL of us, some of us are just okay with it because they have fantasies about shooting back.
1
Unless you're living in "the hood" or other high crime place then you already do that, you're just paranoid because you heard about something that wasn't anywhere near you.
1
Lol then what the fuck do I need a gun for?
1
You probably don't, but that's not an argument anyone is making.
1
No, absolutely not. I'm not forfeiting my rights because of a moving goal post. The government should never be in the business of setting morals
1
What morals? Mental illness and guns don't mix. That isn't overreach, that's just sanity.
1
It's a complete overreach. Where is the line drawn? It's already law if you're declared incompetent you can't possess firearms
1
It's actually not. Four states place no restrictions of gun ownership for the mentally ill. https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/25/us/colorado-firearms-mental-health-trnd/index.html
1
https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/guide/atf-i-33104-%E2%80%94-federal-firearms-prohibitions-under-18-usc-%C2%A7-922g4-%E2%80%93 incorrect. Federal kaw specifically prohibits it if the person Is declared incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental facility. Federal law supercedes any state law. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4)
1
What about my right to feel safe in public?
1
Where is that specifically a constitutional right? Knives while a smaller threat to the masses, are just as deadly. Do we need to take psychiatric evaluations to buy and keep those too or are we just going to do what the UK does and ban those as well? Can you cite a correlation between depression and anxiety to mass shootings? Yes people that commit mass shootings are mentally ill but banning anyone or taking weapons from people that have any amount of mental issues is an extremely slippery slope. It's shocking that you would want to give a government that much power to discriminate.
1
lol knives are not just as deadly. And no it is not a slippery slope. If you are mentally ill you need medical help not guns. I can’t imagine giving psychiatric patients guns. That’s crazy man
1
You're obviously ignoring all of history if you really think the government won't take every opportunity to suppress rights. What's your definition of mental illness as a qualifier? Is a diagnosis of anything from eating disorders to mild depression enough for you? What other rights can be legally chilled because of your comfort. Do we suppress the mentally ill's right to freedom of speech or how about their 4th 5th or 6th amendment rights? You still haven't answered the question, where is your "right to feel safe" codified in any law or constitutional right?
1
It’s in the 9th amendment. Just because a right isn’t codified doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. American citizens most certainly have a right to feel safe in public spaces. What history am I ignoring? The one where we created a government for the people by the people. If you don’t like something the government is doing it’s within your power to enact change. I think that’s amazing and why I love America.
1
I love America as well but you're conveniently ignoring things like the commonly known Tuskegee experiment, mk ultra, operation mocking bird just to name a few. If you love America as you claim, why would you be for the legal discrimination against a large percentage of Americans?
1
The government has done good and bad in the past. I don’t see your point. It was the same government that wrote the bill of rights you hold so sacred. Answer me this. Why are guns use by police as an excuse to use lethal force? And if guns are used as protection against a tyrannical government who decides when the goverment has become tyrannical? When am I in my right to use said gun against the goverment?
1
No
1
I think I'm starting to see why we have so many shootings in this country
1
Do you understand the legal ramifications and processes of losing firearm rights over a depressive episode?
1
I know a person undergoing a depressive episode with guns in the home is a severe danger to themselves and others.
1
So nothing.
1
Sounds like you don’t want gun owners to seek any mental health care. I mean, you probably don’t actually want that, but that’s what is going to happen.
1
What gets blamed after every mass shooting? Mental healthcare. Mental illness and guns don't mix. Full stop. If you can't pass a screening proving your competence, you shouldn't own a gun.
1
That doesn't address my point. What happens to people who already passed this mental health screening and already own guns, but later develop a mental health condition? Your idea discourages them from seeking help. Also not all "mental illness" makes someone dangerous. ADHD is a mental illness. You should be more specific about which types of mental illnesses you think should disallow someone from owning guns. It isn't obvious.
1
>What happens to people who already passed this mental health screening and already own guns, but later develop a mental health condition? Uhhhh Then it sounds like we have bigger problems. You're really not selling this idea to me
1
I would like to point out recently the mother of a school shooter was charged and convicted of a crime for buying her son the guns. Instead of assuming the gun sale was on the up and up, why don't we look into it, reveal how they got the gun, then it can be weighed upon.
1
They do. These investigations are a necessary part of any gun crime. The problem is, often times the gun was purchased legally. Your options are to either make that purchase illegal in the future, or brace yourself to let it happen again. We choose the latter every time.
1
Then, as a gun store owner, you’re faced with a civil rights lawsuit if you don’t sell a gun to somebody who clears a background check. I’m not a gun store owner, I just thought of the liability exposure
1
Well there you go. It's a system with every incentive to sell as many guns as possible with as few barriers as possible. To see the results, look around.
1
That’s not what I said- there are barriers - the background check.
1
Fewer than literally anywhere else in the world.
1
They aren't allowed to use computers to track guns. All by paper. It's not possible. Thanks GOP.
1
I think what you are referring to is the federal gun registry ban, which bars the government from adding guns to the already existing federal gun registry. There is no ban on the federal government from tracking guns with computers, in fact California (I think it was there) "accidentally" leaked all the owners of firearms in their state once.
1
Bold of you to think their guns still have (or ever had) serial numbers
1
Gun laws are not strict enough due to third party sales and gun shows that make it all to easy to get a gun that can't be traced through the line back to you. The problem is the laws are not as good as your comment would imply they are. It's so easy to get these guns that people from neighboring countries (latin American ones) are buying them off the black market from people who buy them here and take them there. Our gun problem is so shitty it makes other countries have gun problems.
1
The chain starts at the factory. That is the problem.
9
I can watch dozens of videos out of Chicago with kids blasting their switch Glocks into the air, out of cars, etc. no one is going to chase them down. One guy with a mask on is outside of the capitol on Jan 6 and they Feds pay for ads, buy fancy facial recognition, and send agents out to individual talk to THOUSANDS of people to hunt them down. We have a bloated and overfunded police state, they just don’t care to go after real criminals because it’s scary and doesn’t pay well.
1
To be honest that's a Glock issue. They need to change the manufacturing for civilians hand guns to make the option of a "switch" less possible.
1
I couldn’t disagree more, but the discussion is about enforcement. The cops have borderline unlimited budgets and numbers that eclipse whole military’s. The could easily shut down the illegal switches at the source or at the end use IF they wanted to, but they don’t. They don’t really care about gang wars, innocent bystanders, or anything like that. Easier to hand out speeding tickets and fish for some loose cash you can seize so your department can buy a margarita machine.
1
That's because they don't give a shit about the people who are being killed. Ice-T was dead on when he wrote that song "No Lives Matter"
1
Same with the border. We don't need a new bill we just need to enforce our existing laws. We need a government that will stop suggesting we give them new powers to fix issues that they created.
1
It's simple we have to have no more freedom in order for the government to ban guns. You have to take away a lot of little freedoms so the government will have a chance to.
4
It's not a gun control issue. It's a responsible gun owner issue. Not to mention, the black market. I abide by the laws. I pay my taxes. NO ONE is taking away my 2nd Ammendment rights...
2
The argument to make is that 100 people die in traffic accidents every single day and nobody even bats an eye.
5
Taking away people's cars isn't gonna make a helpless, dependent, easy to oppress population. Which is the actual goal of gun control.
1
lol, yeah, I’m sure you guys will do great 👍🏻
1
We will, because we’ll be able to protect ourselves. I hope for your sake you and your family never are never held at gunpoint by a criminal, begging for your life in hopes the cops show up in time to save you.
1
Yep, no restrictions on cars at all. Good point. /s
6
They should just make a law against drunk driving. That will stop the drunk drivers
1
It does stop many.
2
Then we can assume that laws against gun violence stops a lot of gun violence as well. The people who commit crimes with guns are just the ones who didn't follow the law.
1
Exactly. Which is why all of the guns need to be removed and those who persist should be given 15 years to life in prison just for possessing one. That's the only way to prevent all the gun violence we see today.
1
Sure right after you amend the Constitution.
1
Yes, the 2A will be amended, or we replace a single Supreme Court Justice.
1
Yes and until that time the laws of the nation stand. In my opinion you are delusional if you will think you're getting 2/3 of states to repeal or amend 2A. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. Time will tell.
1
Texas is going Blue. Cope. We both see the only path. I agree, it needs a 2A clarification. We shall see. The status quo prevents all forms of gun control. Perhaps Alito did us a favor and force us to amend it.
1
You are delusional in my opinion if you don't accept the reality that gun violence is done by enlarge with legally obtained firearms. Gun control would work but conservatives oppose it cause they don't care they think "if only there was a good guy with a gun" .
1
Lmao so making drunk driving illegal DOES stop people from drunk driving so we don't need to ban cars, but making murder illegal DOESNT stop murder so we must ban guns.
0
Yes. Because banning guns reduces gun violence and the ability to commit mass murders. Significantly. Or should we legalize grenades? You know, "self-defense" grenades?
1
Why do "mass shootings" happen in gun free zones and not at gun shows?
0
So your argument is that we should give kindergartners guns?
1
Lmao
1
Reddit moment reply.
1
Then let's have no laws against anything.....after all no laws stop 100% of the criminals. Rape, nudes, robbery, etc etc etc all still happen. Do away with laws, they are useless. /S
1
Ignoring that fact that more than 50% of gun violence in this country is done with legally obtained firearms? Gotcha deny it all you'd like
2
But it doesn’t stop all drunk drivers so the only way to stop it is to remove everyone’s car, any transportation needed will be handled through government buses anyone in violation such as having a car/bike/skateboard will be shot in the head as an example
1
Your argument isn't congruent. The proper argument would be to ban all alcohol and severely punish those who persist. An accidental death from a traffic accident also isn't the same as the intentional use of a gun to shoot somebody. The supposed benefit of an armed society can be achieved without guns, we live in an age where cameras can deter and apprehend criminals. Our justice system needs to refocus on removing violent people for longer periods and less about non-violent crimes. The rioters, looters, insurrectionists, all of them should be in prison for years. Same for the assaulters and rapists, and murderers, ofc.
2
Well yes because the last time we outright banned alcohol that worked out just fine. Also banning alcohol wouldn’t stop others from using their vehicle as a deadly weapon or stop them from driving under the influence of another drug so the only sensible option is to get rid of every car in the world. Also cameras don’t stop criminals if it did we wouldn’t have so many criminals on tape doing illegal things. Your persistence on dying on a hill that is essentially “bend me over big daddy government please give me more boots to lick I trust you” is wild
1
No, it's that the majority of us do not need nor use guns and understand that the 2A is grossly misinterpreted to allow the gun violence we have today. It's about selling guns, not public safety.
1
According to who? You? Who is this we that do not use nor need guns? Because the majority of people do need them whether that’s for self defense, hunting, or keeping them or what the 2A is actually meant for. Just because YOU believe they aren’t needed now does that mean you will never need them? I guess I should just throw away my spare tires since I don’t need them now and I’m a safe driver so I will never need it and everyone else should also just get rid of their tires. Better yet just throw away the cars like I said I don’t need to use a car right now so I will never need it right?
1
Not true. Gun owners are in the minority. The 2A has nothing to do with individuals' self-defense. Guns legality allows gun crimes. Nothing to do with spare tires.
1
Again minority where? You keep speaking as if you are talking on behalf of others with the usage of “us”. You do know that we have the right to bare arms in case the government becomes tyrannical so please explain how defending yourself from a tyrannical government isn’t self defense because if you could read you would notice how I used self defense(usually meant as individual self defense and not defense against a government) and 2A separately yet you still tried to conflate the two unsuccessfully. But hey if you aren’t using that spare tire then you are just a danger to me and everyone else around if you don’t give it up y out will need to be arrested for treason
1
Bare arms? I'm not conflating anything. If you need to take up arms against the U.S. gov't, you would already be an outlaw and don't need the 2A to allow you to do that. Explain how Ukraine, with bigger guns than what the 2A allows, is still having trouble against Russia. You think your Smith and Wesson and AR-15 is gonna stop the M4s and drones that the imaginary war the US would start against its own citizens would involve?
1
Do you have a point to make with that? I apologize the small spelling error has confused you so badly. You did. I mean terribly but you still did. Well by the sounds of it if they broke down your door the only thing you would do is ask what flavor boot polish they have on I hope you have no one that depends on you. Man what a point Ukraine should just give up go in Russian control because guns don’t work I also agree no more money should be wasted on that war still has nothing to do with the US
1
No. I don't need to demand to own a gun in a civil society to pretend it would stop a tyrannical gov't or an invading force. You think a Lorcin .22 stops a Russian infantry division? Ukraine is a democratic ally and a free nation. Russia is an oligarchy dictatorship that is as dangerous as Germany was during WWII. You are too young to understand the Cold War.
1
You are correct you don’t but you should and the fact you are already willing to roll over even in a made up scenario says a lot about you as a person. Do you think a man in a tie or a woman in a pant suit is bulletproof? You believe they should just roll over though since guns won’t stop Russia therefore Ukraine should just fold and give up. To believe violence will not be necessary in order to create or maintain a “civil” society shows not only ignorance but also cowardice. You are far too old to speak to others about the future when you got like what 3 days left? Of course it wouldn’t matter to you if everyone else falls into an actual dystopia you have no skin in the game and therefore no leg to stand on
1
No, what I am saying is that personal guns don't win a civil war nor repel a modern invader. If the U.K. and the USA and NATO stop funding and arming Ukraine, they lose to Russia in a matter of weeks. Has nothing to do with .22s and .45s. Or hunting rifles.
1
Oh yes the classic “money solves everything” viewpoint. I’m sure the Ukrainians are just chucking nickels at the Russians. Like it or not but GUNS are being used to repel the Russians we are sending money primarily for weapons and ammunition well at least that’s what it’s supposed to be going for. Why not just take the Ukrainians guns? How do their guns stop nukes and tanks?
1
Their personal handguns and rifles aren't repelling anything. Anything less than an AK or M4 has no bearing. Wars are won and lost on supply alone.
1
Oh yeah I’m sure those Russians have no problem dodging the bullets from a measly handgun but also those are the type of guns I also advocate for owning not just handguns. So it’s cool that you admit that guns ARE indeed useful for repelling a hostile government
1
AKs and M4s aren't legal. And no, they alone can't stop a hostile invasion. Stop being a dupe for the NRA, they only work for gun manufacturers to increase sales.
1
Didn’t say they were stop simping for authorization governments. I said I am advocating for them to be. So which is it are guns useful for repelling a hostile government or not you can’t keep switching sides just because I agreed with something you said. Idk why the NRA lives in your head rent free I didn’t bring them up
1
You belong in prison, you are an anti-government nut. You live in the freest nation on Earth and have issues, smh.
1
And that is the reason why people like you shouldn’t have an effect on civil society. You instantly want to lock up anyone who disagrees with you. I wouldn’t do that to you but to be fair you’ve shown nothing but cowardice and deserve nothing but pity
1
Nah, Bro. You are obviously paranoid and out of touch with reality. People who advocate illegal gun ownership of machine guns are a danger to our civil society and need to be locked up before they go to Vegas and kill people from a high-floor suite. I'm reporting you to the FBI Domestic Terrorism Unit. Where do you live, Coward?
1
Sure I am bro like I’m the one saying the best way to defend yourself from oppression is to go along with it If the law was changed it wouldn’t be illegal gun ownership. Wanting to update the law is NOT the same as advocating for breaking the law or are you too stupid to understand that? Go ahead and report me for nothing you dope. The irony of you calling anyone a coward is hilarious when you openly admit to being the bitch of whoever has a gun near you
1
Good thing you clarified that. You didn't say advocate a change in the law at first.
1
Well of course but I can’t really blame you there you haven’t really been using what you have between the ears but if you still wanna report me because I….hold on one sec…..believe in self defense then go ahead even though you want to lock up anyone who disagrees with you I still believe in your right to be free maybe one day you will actually learn or not who knows you don’t really have much time left do you
1
No, again you are demonstrating why you shouldn't own any gun. Never said I want to lock up anyone who disagrees with me, just those who advocate illegal machine gun ownership.
1
I shouldn’t own a gun because I disagree with you. Got it again cowards like you will need others to defend you which is fine I guess can’t say I relate but hey bootlickers gotta bootlick I suppose
1
No, you shouldn't own a gun bc you have perception problems based in paranoid delusions, you have a persecutory complex.
1
I’m paranoid because I believe in the reason that we have the 2A to begin with? Do you need a wellness check? You don’t seem to be doing alright if anything it feels like you are having a stroke
1
You are paranoid because you said I want to jail anyone who disagrees with me. Never said that, nor could a person in touch with reality conclude that. Which also makes you dangerous with any gun based on your paranoia about the government being "tyrannical". Care to explain what sorts of tyranny you are experiencing or anticipating and how your legal firearm alleviates it?
1
You have literally said I should be in jail based off of nothing beyond your incoherent ramblings. You did say it and the fact you don’t remember is another point to you possibly having a stroke. Please show me where I said the government IS tyrannical. Because all I’ve spoken on is IF they become tyrannical I know reading is hard for you and you don’t care about taking in new information but you’re going to have to really try because your baseless accusations of paranoia and secret possible dangers is a move straight out of the Red Scare
1
You said you advocated the possession of AKs and M4s, both of which are illegal. How are you imagining our government to become tyrannical and how will your Glock prevent that?
1
So you must have forgotten where I said I advocate for the changing of gun laws because I believe those guns to be well within what the 2A was made for. You must also have forgotten where you used those exact guns as a defense as to how Ukraine can defend itself from Russia before changing your mind and thinking they are tossing quarters at the enemy. Where did I say a single glock would stop it? My god you are a dense old one aren’t you. When your plan to fight oppression isnt “just let them do it to you and thank them afterwards” like useless coward then I will take what you say with more than half a grain of salt until then good luck doing nothing for no one
1
You said that later on, not at first. Done talking to a gun nut like you. Good luck with your M4 legislation! /s
1
Less than half a grain of salt now. Good job spoken like someone that would gleefully rat out their neighbor to the Nazis because “Welp dats da government fer ya hur thank you daddy government”
1
I was a libertarian too. When I was twelve. Then I grew up.
1
Not as done talking as you said eh? Shouldn’t be surprised you aren’t the type of person to say what they mean or not understand the words you spew
1
Ok, whatevs. You really should be making some phone calls to Senators to get your M4 legislation rolling.
1
Oof boomer using slang outside your decade isn’t your strong suit but again lil miss “wahh I’m done talking to you wahh” on your second comment from that in 20 minutes lol sit down the non senile folks are doing things.
3
No restrictions on murder either. Good point. /s
2
I was actually launched by some dumbass in an SUV while in a crosswalk 2 years ago. My spine is still screwed up
1
Just a painfully dumb and tired argument. There’s no comparison.
1
Ideologically brainwashed. I don't even like guns, but I can see how this is just a political sportsball game.  This is one of the least probable ways for you to die and you're freaking out about it. 
1
Except that isn't true. Automobiles are massively regulated, from their manufacture to their use. Few complain about that. Do what you want with this stat, but in about 2 out of evert 3 states, more deaths are now occurring by guns than cars
1
You're including suicides. 
1
So?
1
Be careful if you go down the route of saying "guns should be regulated the same as cars". I promise it won't go the way you think.
0
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that. I pointed out the person I was responding to, who claimed driving and cars were less regulated than guns. Make whatever case you want, I simply don't like misinformation. You would not like my solution to the gun problem. Everyone here would downvote me off Reddit, so I don't say it.
1
Except we do.... We add more traffic lights, we add stop signs, we put police officers in that area to monitor the area for speeding, or put up DUI check points there, and we have drivers licenses and tests to make sure people should be allowed to drive and are capable of being safe. There are a lot of things we do to prevent dangerous areas of traffic. You can't get it to zero but you can do things to prevent them and we do them. But with guns people refuse to even do this, it's literally the whole doing the same shit and expecting different results thing with guns.
1
Yeah nobody has ever tried to enact laws to reduce driving fatalities....never ..,.ever .... /S
1
I can't drive my gun to work, what the fuck argument is this?
1
Yeah, it's not like cars have any other value besides killing people. Oh wait...
1
Are you proposing that all guns should have to be registered and regularly inspected? That gun owners should be required by law to be insured for any potential damage and/or loss of life that results directly or indirectly from the use of their guns? That guns should be restricted to only certain areas, with their registration numbers always visable, and that entire segments of the police should spend their time doing nothing more than monitoring gun owners to ensure compliance with the law? All this among the dozens of other regulations that are placed on cars? If so, you're a stronger proponent of gun control than any politician in this country.
1
You know, rights are all just made up. They can take those “rights” away from you at any given time.
1
Lmao "rights can be taken away whenever we want. We are the good guys"
1
Not if we kill them over it.
1
Try learning to count past 2 buddy. Your rights have already been eroded. A gun isn’t going to help you 🤣
1
Yes, we will.
1
No it's a gun control issue. It works in every other country, it will never be absolutely perfect you can't get the sum to 0, but every other country with gun laws does not have any problem remotely close to what America has. Hell just limiting how much ammo can be held in a clip, how fast a gun can fire, and adding extra levels of process to obtaining a gun would go a far way to lessening the amount of injuries and deaths in this country.
1
Your second ammendment rights don't supercede my right to say that your legally obtained firearm is being used to commit school shootings. This IS A GUN CONTROL ISSUE.
1
If only the rules about gun control would be designed to limit numbers and to make rules about storing weapons safely so juveniles find it hard to get guns... I mean seriously though, you can't honestly believe what you just wrote.
3
If gun control worked, why hasn't it?
-2
*Points to basically every modern country* , um excuse me? I don't think this quip is as good as you thought it was.
2
Do those countries have low gun violence because of gun control, or have they always had low levels of gun violence, even when they had essentially zero gun control? Take a look at England: 120 years ago they had practically no gun control laws, and today they have some of the strictest gun control systems in Europe. Despite that, the murder rate is essentially unchanged between 1900 and today.
1
They do not have guns to the degree we have and we have more gun violence because of it, and removing guns will remove many innocent victims.
1
Yes, it will remove many innocent victims from the planet due to their inability to protect themselves.
1
People are still victims even with a gun. The gun gives many a false sense of security.
1
I agree, but what other chance does a petite or weak person have against a hardened criminal?
1
There are non-lethal means, such as a stun gun. More petite criminals overcome larger victims because the CRIMINAL has the gun, not the other way around.
1
Regardless of whether or not the criminal has a gun, the potential victim is at an advantage having a gun. I’ve watched countless videos where police use a taser to almost zero effect on a large or drug fueled criminal. And I’m just going to reject the premise that everyone should have to spend the time and money for martial arts training just to be able to safely navigate society or protect their home.
1
No, they are not. The criminal has the advantage and initiative because they have a gun. If you don't want to spend the time to be safe, then safety isn't the concern. It's the love of the gun. And if I know you are armed and I'm still intent on committing the crime, I'm going to kill you first. Tell me how the 2A protects spouses from being shot by their spouses?
1
It really doesn’t in most cases of spousal homicide, but then I never said it did. In cases of robbery and assault however, 2A can and has protected the victim.
1
And having a gun has also got the victim shot and killed when they would have survived unscathed instead.
1
So why not just let each law abiding individual decide for themselves?
1
Because allowing guns in the first place is the problem. Everybody with a gun gets theirs from the same supply chain. There are plenty of legally-purchased guns which become used in gun violence and the victims deserve better from us as a society to prevent every Tom, Dick, and Harry from having an unnecessary gun.
1
Illegal shootings are spiking. This is not a gun problem, but a societal one. In high school in the 80’s, we were allowed to have guns in the car at school. Why weren’t there rampant shootings like today? It was the same when I was in college in the early 90’s, where we were allowed to have them inside the building. I’m very sorry people are told they have no hope because they’re the wrong color, the planet is burning, you have to look like Barbie because the latest Tik Tok person does, or whatever bullshit is being peddled that makes someone desperate enough to shoot innocent people, but none of that removes any of one’s rights to constitutionally protected methods of protection.
1
4 Supreme Court Justices disagree with you. It is a gun problem. More guns into poor people's hands. More gun violence. Period
1
All 4 of them protected with guns.
1
Not personal guns. Professional bodyguards.
1
Oh I see. It’s only ok for entitled people to have certain protections.
1
Yes, Supreme Court Justices qualify for a well-vetted team of armed bodyguards as they are subject to political assassination. Common sense. 18-year old loners living in Mommy's basement with undiagnosed psychosis are not entitled to AR-15s.
1
How about a woman being stalked who can’t afford a well vetted team of armed bodyguards?
1
One possible exception, we can agree upon that. Are you willing to put her in jail for 10 years minimum if she lies about it or allows her gun to be transferred or "lost" into the black market? And only if she takes classes to demonstrate competency about use and when she may and may not use it.
1
I wouldn’t put her jail. I believe she doesn’t even need an excuse to have a gun. I’m just asking you, in your world where guns are confiscated, how we decide who among us deserves the privilege of being granted one. Let’s see. Do we let a business owner experiencing a series of strong-arm robberies have one? How about a family camping in an area where there are wolves?
1
No and no. Robberies can be prevented without personal gun use, and property crimes don't justify summary execution. And no, you can find another way to camp safely without arming yourself with a firearm or else you can choose not to camp. The people who decide is the people, through policy and laws by elected representatives.
1
And for now, the laws protect gun ownership. If enough voters want to change that, I hope they’ll first learn the histories of Germany, China, Soviet Union, Turkey, Uganda, and more. This is what should be taught, and was until recently, instead of “the weapon is responsible for the crime.” It’s all part of the destruction of personal responsibility.
1
The 2A needs to be amended. You are being fed propaganda the NRA to promote gun sales, a billion-dollar industry. None of those countries was a healthy and wealthy democracy like ours. Personal firearms do not prevent government tyranny. Voting out bad actors does.
1
I would be open to learning about your proposed amendment.
1
"Personal firearms are not a right, they are a privilege subject to the laws of Congress, including universal bans if deemed necessary for public safety."
1
Fair enough, but I think you and I both know that would result in a hasty ban for public safety (by perception or desire).
1
No. It would take a repeated effort of fine-tuning policy. Once many gun nuts realize they won't qualify to own a gun, they won't want anyone else to either. A blanket ban wouldn't occur immediately, if ever. And only if a majority voted in representatives to do that.
1
Why wouldn’t they qualify?
1
No demonstrated need for one.
1
Let’s take the previous example of the woman being stalked. She has to submit what? Witness accounts, phone records, video surveillance, visible bodily injuries for review? And how long does that take? She might be dead tomorrow and she’s told to wait weeks, months? Multiply her case by tens of millions of others to be reviewed and decided by whom? Who’s responsible if she’s murdered after being denied?
1
Yes. The Sheriff, via deputies. Or a specific Judge in larger venues. The murderer and the authorities who failed to investigate and arrest the stalker upon complaint.
1
You’re a dumbass🤣
1
Not true. Google it. Studies have been done on this stuff. You are more likely to die if you are armed with a gun.
1
Ok, I Googled it and learned what you already knew. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/gun-ownership-provides-effective-self-defense-gun-control-p-142-149
1
Sorry what uh were you lying about? https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762
1
Was I lying, or did I cite a study?
1
Here let me correct myself what were you misinformed about?
1
Why is my study wrong and yours is right?
1
Because your study is from fucking 1992. While my study is from less than 2 years ago. Now tell me again what were you misinformed about?
1
And your study is funded by 3 anti gun groups, and 2 universities, most of which are notoriously anti gun.
1
As was your study funded by pro gun groups. Again what were you misinformed About?
1
It’s news to me that the Department of Justice is pro gun.
1
Consider the following during 1992. (The year of the study you cited) the attorney General during that year was willaim Pelham Barr who also was the attorney General during trumps presidency. He is pro gun.
1
Ok so the Attorney General of the United States took it upon himself to command the Department of Justice to produce a biased study on gun use. Got it. Maybe read this https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-largest-ever-survey-of-american-gun-owners-finds-that-defensive-use-of-firearms-is-common/
1
Except those non lethal means have no range compared to a criminal with an illegally obtained firearm. are you down wind from the criminal? Congratulations, now your pepper spray is fucking useless.
1
Useless against what? A gun? How about we catch the criminal with the gun and confiscate BEFOREHAND, and put him in jail for 15 years? Cops do this all the time. Yet those guns are usually "legal" and let go, or only punished lightly when not.
1
You have never been in a physical confrontation in your life “snowmonkey” keep telling women to just let themselves get attacked. Tard
1
I have. And plenty of women can protect themselves without a gun.
1
No they cannot. You think they’re gonna throw up a triangle or something? They’ll get slammed on their head and beat to death. The only sure fire protection for women is a gun. You are a liar.
1
A gun is not a sure-fire protection nor the only protection for a woman. Most women take other precautionary measures and do not walk around with a handgun.
1
Those women are targets. An attacker is going to have a weapon and the only answer to that is a better weapon. Women are walking around with handguns in larger numbers now than any other point in history to protect themselves from people like YOU.
1
Yeah, more propaganda and false rhetoric, Buddy. The majority of women in the United States left the house without a handgun today and were not a victim of any crime. They are more likely to be shot by a boyfriend, husband, or other acquaintance, or a stalker, than use a handgun in any form of self-defense. Even women who armed themselves against stalkers become victims, because the stalkers have had legal access to firearms.
1
Says I’m using propaganda and then makes up scenarios using atrocity propaganda, you’re as bright as a rock.
1
You’re opinions don’t matter though because women see through you and see you’re trying to make easier victims for you to take advantage of. Truly sickening
1
Excluding that most firearms used in crime (in the USA) is obtained legally.
1
You got a source for that?
1
An assailant can easily cut you up after getting pepper sprayed. Pepper spray sucks ass, but you can fight through it for a while. I personally have nothing against martial arts, but it takes a good 5-10yrs of training to be any sort of combat efficient. I would not advise sending a yellow/orange belt into a knife fight lol.
1
Start training them at 5, they'll be a black belt before they are 16. Blanket gun availability leads to kindergartners being slaughtered.
1
Unless they're a child prodigy, it's very unlikely. It's better to start a little older so they actually understand what they're doing and why technique is important. Martial arts is not like soccer or tee-ball. The basics take a lot longer to learn and can be frustrating for a kindergartner.
1
I knew a couple of twin girls who made Blue Belt at 15 that could easily take down a dude with a knife, let alone "defend themselves".
1
Bad guy with a gun normally gets it by stealing it from a good guy with a gun. The black market fully depends on stealing guns from legal owners.
1
Even if I thought a thing should be illegal because it might be stolen and used nefariously, guns can now be 3d printed.
1
You know excluding the more than 50% of gun crimes that are done with legally obtained firearms?
1
Literally not how that works. Statistically you are more likely to die in a robbery or mugging if you have a firearm due to you thinking the gun will protect you.
1
"For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/
1
Do you think there will be any negative consequences with making gun ownership illegal?
1
If you count only white gun violence, this is one of the safest countries on the planet... So guns clearly aren't the issue.
1
Guns are the issue. It impacts poor people the most. Which happen to be more blacks than whites.
1
Wait, what? We have nearly 400 million guns in this country. A vanishingly small number of those firearms are used to commit violent, let alone murder. In other words, even counting suicides,, not even 1% of the firearms are involved with deaths. Its not even .05%. Its not even .02%. If you think that the number of guns in this country is why there are *so many* gun-related deaths, then you'd think there'd be an even far greater number. We have more gun violence and violence, generally, than most other nations because we dont operate a police state or a surveillance state, because our culture is far more violent than almost all other nations.
1
Not true. The increase in gun violence is directly proportional to the spike in guns the NRA promoted with "Obama is gonna take your guns away". We do live in a "police state" of surveillance. Our violence is directly tied to gun culture. Guns allow for bigger numbers and more severity.
1
Ok, so now youre shifting from the volume of guns to talking about an increase in gun violence. Besides, until the pandemic, [gun violence had been trending down since 1993https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/trends-and-patterns-firearm-violence-1993-2018](https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/trends-and-patterns-firearm-violence-1993-2018) and since 2021 has gone back to trending down. So, IM not sure what data youre looking at, but youre just wrong on the basic fact. You say that, "Not true. The increase in gun violence is directly proportional to the spike in guns the NRA promoted with "Obama is gonna take your guns away". We do live in a "police state" of surveillance", but you offer no evidence of this. Your assertion, "Our violence is directly tied to gun culture" doesnt support the preceding statement and is, itself, an unsubstantiated assertion. Actual mass killings are exceedingly rare in the US notwithstanding the news media's and special interest groups attempts to classify 2 or more injuries as a mass violence events here in the US. The vast majority of multi-victim incidents are crime-related and not involving real mass killing events. No reasonable person believes that theres a mass shooting event or more per day in the US despite the special interests and news media attempts to brainwash into thinking as much.
1
Criminals have access to guns because guns are widely distributed, legally. Crime-related gun violence IS the problem. Are you arguing that those stats don't qualify? What is a "non-crime-related" mass shooting? Rare is a vague term. Too many to allow 18-year olds loners and aging nutcases to buy AR-15s. The brainwashing is from the NRA. We are less safe with unregulated gun markets.
1
"Criminals have access to guns because guns are widely distributed, legally." So youre a confiscation guy. Ok.
1
Yes. 99% of you have no real need of a firearm beyond psychological.
1
Well, Japan it's from the gun control. You have to prove you can actually aim the gun. You have mental health checks. You are required to use a safe and you get a frandom inspection every few years to make sure you're actually USING the safe. So a kid taking dad's gun and shooting 9 kids is unheard of. Some years they have 1 shooting.
1
They're typically dominated by a single race. No melting pots there. Just sayin.
1
>Take a look at England: 120 years ago they had practically no gun control laws, and today they have some of the strictest gun control systems in Europe. Despite that, the murder rate is essentially unchanged between 1900 and today. Because the second a school shooting happened... they banned firearms... you clearly don't understand.
1
Murder rate hasn't changed in 120 years in England though. I would expect the murder rate to be much lower today vs in 1900, given the country has some of the strictest gun control laws in Europe.
1
Because murder was already low? Not sure what to tell you. The USA on the other hand though, more than 50% of firearms used in gun related crimes are obtained legally. So gun control would lower the rates of gun related crime.
1
Yes, but not the murder rate. So, the same number of people will be murdered, but just won't be with guns. So what's the point?
1
They most certainly did not. England's 'first' school shooting was in the 18th century. The UK has reached the point that they're trying to ban *knowing* about knives, in order to combat violent crime. Having knowledge is now a terrorist act. Think about that for a moment.
1
How often in England do entire classrooms of children get blown to pieces?
1
Mexico has an almost complete prohibition on firearms, yet one of the highest murder rates in the world. The Swiss damned near mandate everybody own a fully automatic rifle, yet has one of the lowest rates in the world. That is the problem when people make childish claims without examining the reality.
1
Mexico's gun problem is literally entirely our fault lmao
1
So if America had Mexican levels of gun control, would America look more like Mexico when it comes to gun violence, or would it look more like Europe? Keep in mind, there are approximately 500 million guns in circulation in the United States, most of them owned legally. Making those guns illegal will create a flourishing black market (even more so than it is right now) which will be violent and deadly.
1
Your entire argument hinges on the proposition that guns would be outright outlawed, or that all of those guns in circulation would become contraband, which is not the case, people in England, Australia and indeed all of these places which we seek to model their gun control have plenty of legal gun ownership, with the most stringent requirements for the average person being a legal reason to own one, which usually includes both sport and self defense.
1
And once again, passing even more gun laws when the ones on the books already are not even enforced is pointless. How about mandatory prison sentences of a minimum of 10 years for some of the crimes already on the books? Like a felon with a gun, making a straw purchase, or using a gun in any sort of crime? That is the real problem, not that there are not enough laws. It is that the laws we already have are almost never enforced. I am sick of hearing about some felon doing a robbery with a pistol, then only getting 2 or 3 years. TO me, crimes like that should be 10 years minimum. With each following offence doubled. Criminals know they will only get a slap on the wrist, so have no fear of the law. Start putting teeth back into them, and I bet the crimes like that drop quickly. Otherwise, you can pass 100 laws and prohibit all weapons and they will still get them. Mexico has the exact same problem. Outright prohibition, yet their criminal justice system is corrupt and a joke so none of the criminals care. That is why they have sent some of their worst cartel leaders to the US. As bad as our system is, it's better than theirs.
1
Ok but their system isn't bad because of their gun laws, furthermore, our shitty drug policies with their mandatory minimums do nothing, and your solution is the fundamental problem, you and the justice system in America I. General sees it as punishment and not a correctional facility, you fix the problem that motivates the crime, you fix problems that cause addiction not jail addicts, you dont out a ten year sentence on gun charges, you take away the guns from people who shouldn't have them, which means tighter regulations, not outright bans.
1
>you fix the problem that motivates the crime, you fix problems that cause addiction not jail addicts That is nonsensical in the extreme. What about the problems that cause theft, muggings, sexual assault, rape, murder, car theft, and all of the other problems? I have no freaking interest in trying to "solve the problems", I care about removing those from the general public and being punished so they do not do it again. If your dog craps on the carpet, do you try and find out what it needs to stop doing that, or do you whack it across the nose and scold it? Because I can promise you, doing one will do absolutely nothing to stop the problem, and the other one will.
1
I promise you that you don't know shit and I hope you don't have animals since you have no qualms abusing them.
1
Very nice response, can't refute facts so resort to insults. Have a nice day.
1
Really? Are we forcing their gangs to buy guns? The most common guns traced from Mexico back to the US are actually .380 and .22 pistols. But most of what the gangs are using are illegal even in the US, so that really does not make sense.
1
This quip you made was categorically incorrect. Keep spreading nonsense.
1
Which country has zero violent crime after making violence illegal?
1
What's an example of one of these modern countries? Can you include population and land area? Also whether or not they have a posse comitatus equivalent? 🙏
1
Lax enforcement. The simple fact is, even when caught those that violate most of the gun laws are never prosecuted. Case in point, a "Straw Purchase" or falsely filling out an ATF 4473 is a felony, but guess how many people are ever convicted for that? Or all the cases of felons with a firearm that are essentially tossed out of court. It does not matter if you add a million laws, if they are not enforced, they are all worthless and will do nothing. Want to see things change? Mandatory enforcement and minimum sentencing for things like "armed robbery" and "felon with a firearm" violations. Actually lock them up for a minimum of 10 years, and you might start to see things change. But I am sick and tired of reading about some gangbanger with several felonies getting caught after doing a drive-by, and then after their trial only being sentenced to 2 years. Where that is how long they were in jail awaiting trial and are released. I am highly 2nd Amendment, but am even more pro-enforcement of the laws. And if there is no enforcement, there is essentially no law. They just need to get serious about enforcing the laws they already have.
1
Please tell me, what school shootings has Britain had since it banned guns? If gun control doesn't work why not? You have an explanation for everything. Also having a firearm makes you more likely to die of violent crime because you are more likely to try and play the hero. Rather than letting professionals deal with it or minding your own damn business and not costing people their lives.
1
Lol, professionals? Who? The bullies that show up after the fact and write a report? Lol. You earned that downvote.
1
"For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/
1
There are more firearms than people in this country. If firearms were the problem, everyone would be dead. I think maybe it's a people problem. They used to teach firearm safety and marksmanship in public schools. Now one third of kids are medicated and have ADHD and depression. But they aren't the problem, it's the tool. Ok. 🤦🏾‍♂️
1
Filling my "bullshit gun lobby talking points" bingo card right up "More guns than people" nobody said shit about the number of guns sitting around unused. Every aspect of the statistic I quotes reflects an actual use of a firearm, with a 22:1 ratio of bad uses for every good use "If firearms were the problem, everyone would be dead" Everybody isn't dead, hence guns don't present a problem for the 117K people shot in the US every year (35% of which die), got it "Now one third of kids are medicated and have ADHD and depression." Number one cause of death for kids 5-14 in the US is a firearm (third year in a row), but TIL kids on medication for their ADHD are the real problem and the reason adults are shooting themselves and each other. Ok.
1
Exclude suicides and your numbers go down to almost non-existent. 🤷🏾‍♂️
1
The problem is there is low enforcement on existing laws which indicates a problem wirh law enforcement, along with weak gun laws and no gun registry.
1
Why have laws at all then?
1
That's obviously not the point. The point is, if something is already illegal, then how could you hope to make it more illegal? More importantly, why would you punish law abiding citizens in the process?
1
This is how it works for everything... taking it to an extreme to point out your flawed logic, do you think guns should be available to buy from vending machines?
1
No. That would also be illegal already. You have to go to a federal firearms licensee, complete a background check, and complete any local requirements, such as a waiting period.
1
Yes, because of gun laws.
1
Which didn't stop this shooting. Here we are, back at the beginning. Care to take the merry-go-round for another turn?
1
Lol, I very clearly pointed out how your logic is flawed, and you won't admit it... I guess this is why the gun situation in the US just continues to get worse lol.
1
I love the argument I hear from all these fucking new age gun nuts. "Well gun laws don't prevent bad people from having guns!" And in the same conversation will defend "Well no I haven't registered all my firearms, I don't want the government to know how many I have!" Like my brother in Christ you are literally part of the problem. Do I agree with all gun laws? No, but do I understand there should be more strict licensing for owning and possession of firearms? Yes, because any idiot can see that just passing a preliminary background check can get a gun. Hell my dad is 70, he was talking about wanting a 10mm handgun, we went to one of our LGS and I wanted a 9mm for myself (got a Beretta 92f 💪). We live in a fairly relaxed gun law state but he was shocked he was able to walk in and buy his gun and leave with it the same day, because you COULD NOT do that back when he was originally still buying guns.
0
Yeah seems like flooding the country with a half billion his was a bad fucking idea. Like we said. You all didn’t care like you don’t care about dead kids every day.
1
Then how did those juveniles obtain said firearms? Did they maybe steal them from their parents? This whole responsible gun owner thing is bs
1
Yeah we have gun laws so there’s totally no way anyone can get guns illegally. We also have drug laws so there’s no way people can do drugs. Oh and laws against murder and theft so that can’t happen either. Oh wait… We do not have a gun problem, we have a culture problem.
1
Yeah, I mean, we have SO many laws against murder, but it still happens. So why even bother having laws about it in the first place?
1
MMW the perpetrators had been released from detention on previous occasion.
3
🏃🏿‍♂️
1
I don’t understand. Could you elaborate?
2
Gang members
1
I mean... I'd expect middle class white kids based on how often that's the case and the media tries to portray it as just random happenstance.
1
It’s a common misconception. white men are commonly the active shooters. An active shooter is someone in a public place trying to rack up a high body count. Mass shooters are mostly black, because most mass shootings are just shootings with multiple victims. The KC shooting probably looked something like [this](https://youtu.be/zKZbyC1ccMY?si=S_nm1UwH9NkjEyx6)
1
That's why they aren't talking about the perps, everyone can guess the demographic, so instead it's about guns.
1
Why is the demographic relevant?
1
Who?
2
There’s a reason it’s already out of the new cycle
1
Racist bullshit right here
1
As far you know I could be talking about gang members You assuming I’m talking about a particular forever victim group kinda shows off your own racism
1
But you’re not
1
Yeah the moment I got to the "Chicago" reply I just noped the fuck out of that thread. And people say Reddit doesn't have a racist problem..
1
Not to mention they were criminals and one an illegal alien
37
What about the 320 million people who didn't shoot anyone? Why do they immediately jump to attacking *those* innocent people? What about the 500+ million guns that weren't used in a crime today? If guns are the problem, why didn't *they* shoot anyone?
15
Agreed. With their logic let’s remove cars and licenses for them because too many people are irresponsible with them.
-2
Licenses for cars.... you were so close.
2
Ok but using your logic we should still punish the people using the licenses because someone not allowed to drive who did not have a license did something bad right? Because that's literally this instance, the shooter wasn't legally allowed a gun, they didn't follow the law.
3
Drivers are "punished" all the time with things like speed limits and stop signs, i.e. REGULATIONS that prohibit unsafe activity.
3
Yes, so why should you punish someone who hasn't broken the speed limit when someone breaks the speed limit?
1
No, what you're saying is "Why should you 'punish' driver who haven't killed anybody yet?" Let them have a car with no regulations or licensing and if and when they kill or injure someone with it, take it away.
1
Nope that's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is use the existing laws to punish those that ignore the law, not implement more laws to punish those that follow the law.
1
The speed limit IS the "punishment". Its the regulation, the reasonable imposition on the individual that makes the whole road safer. People like you want no speed limits anywhere because it might "punish" responsible drivers.
2
But wouldn't the background check be akin to the speed limit in this case? It's pretty hyperbolic to argue that people want zero restrictions on firearms. Like of course you can find one person in the world who says that but we're not in high school and we don't make arguments like that. Right?
1
>It's pretty hyperbolic to argue that people want zero restrictions on firearms This is not hyperbolic at all, it's a mainstream Republican position. Multiple people are arguing this in this very thread. Much like with abortion, I think right wingers confuse their imaginary common sense regulations with what is actually being implemented and legislated. We have elected officials saying guns should be allowed in bars. There is no reasonable universe where that makes sense, and yet it is on the docket and being voted that way, time and again. Right wing America are "catching the car" on totally unrestricted guns, and they'll eventually start regretting it just like they do with abortion. Things just have to get worse first.
2
I'm a left wing gun owner. What you're saying is not true. You're doing more harm to your cause by being dishonest. Straw Manning people you disagree with is the number one way to be ignored.
1
You need to pay more attention to what mainstream Republican politicians are saying with their mouths and doing with their votes.
2
I'm at the gun range and around real life conservatives way more than you. That's where my comments come from.
0
The Heller Case stripped all gun control and the NRA and their paid representatives in gov't, all of whom are Republicans, are promoting guns for everybody, all of the time. The only alternative being disguised as "gun control" from conservatives is saying that we should arm teachers to prevent school shooters lmfao.
1
By your logic the presence of a speed limit is a punishment
1
Nah not in my opinion, it's a necessary regulation that doesn't prevent anyone from having a car or using it, however let's say you banned certain types of cars because one car did a hit and run, then that would be a punishment.
3
Oh boy… if you think people with expired tag, registration, licenses, or operate motor vehicles without insurance actually get punished… They don’t even arrest and prosecute armed carjackers..
1
Lol what are you on about? People get their licenses taken for that stuff all the time. What do you think traffic court does all day?
1
Not in DC they don’t. Expired and paper tags are everywhere.
1
So your argument is that we should add more laws that will not be enforced by law enforcement because the current laws on the books are not being enforced? What kind of childish argument is this? And what other contexts would you make an argument like this?
1
No. We should not add more laws that are not going to be enforced. Very much pro 2A here my guy.
1
So where is the 2A community's pressure campaign on law enforcement to step up here? Why is it blue flu all over the country? Still feelings about Floyd or what?
1
Yes, they do.
1
What regulation or law doesn't exist that, if it did exist, would have prevented this? Your suggested law or regulation cannot be one that would "remove cars or licenses" from other, innocent, people.
1
Good question. With literally thousands of answers. How about you tell me one? I'd love to hear some solutions apart from "let's just get over it."
1
If there are thousands of answers, give me one. I'm not answering my own question for you.
1
Safe storage laws. Guns cannot be owned unless you have a locking container to put them in, where they must always be stored if they aren't on your person. This would cut down on legal sales to irresponsible morons as well as gangsters who cannot provide proof, and would improve the standards inside the responsible gun owning community, making thefts less common.
1
Except we have no idea how these guns were obtained. Maybe they we're locked up and the kids stole the entire safe. These bedside safes that many people keep their handguns in are the size of a shoebox.
1
You obviously aren't a gun owner if you think there isn't regulations on firearms holy shit. The Gun Control Act, National Firearms Act, and a plethora of others are in effect all the time. You need to do RESEARCH. If a firearm is used in any capacity, even in lawful use, you are heavily scrutinized by the government for it, even with our Rights.
1
And "shooters" are punished all the time, too, with regulations that prohibit assault and murder.
1
I'm under the impression that making it illegal lets you deal with it.
1
Murder is already illegal.
1
Making it illegal let's us deal with it, yes
1
What constitutional amendment covers a drivers license?
2
Driving a car is a privilege, not a right.
-2
You are uninformed. But don't worry, a not so friendly Libertarian is here to smack the dumbass out of you, though I doubt it will work. First, driver's licensing and safety testing came AFTER the requirement for licensing. In some states, it was several decades between the requirement for a license and the requirement to test. If you were a thinking person, which we've already established that you aren't, but if you were, you might ask why is that? Because the original purpose of the license was to generate "tax" revenue without actually having to pass a tax law. Brilliant isn't it. As with all government policies, the stated purpose and the actual purpose often are very different. And they will gladly backfill the stated purpose with public safety concerns. "Licensing saves lives!" they will cry. But make no mistake, they don't give a fuck about safety. They want control. And money. But mostly control. Second, there is no right to a car in the Bill of Rights, so the rest of the analogy can fuck off.
3
You really think you said something of substance here, don’t you?
1
No. But I was berating a moron.
1
Homeboy, I too am a Libertarian. This kind of post..... this isn't helping the cause my brother.
1
Sometimes I just wanna fuck people up. This was one of them.
1
Cars operate on government infrastructure. I don't need a license to drive around my yard, or purchase a car in the first place. Try again
1
Please continue down this train of thought and see where it leads you. You don't have to have a license to buy a car. You can buy whatever car you want. A license is only required for driving on public streets. You dont need a "background check" to get a license. A license does not prevent people from choosing to break the law. People drive without licenses all the time. A license only proves that you know the laws of driving in public. Licenses are designed to prevent accidents, not malicious intent. Do you think that people who commit murder are just unaware that murder is illegal? I'm absolutely on board with "licenses" for guns the same way we do them for cars. The question is why you think that would do anything about violence.
-9
You guys keep referencing cars...so stupid. The most heavily regulated product you can buy, requires a license in every state. Safety features, traffic laws, too many laws to mention. You can absolutely not do whatever the hell you want with a car, so keep pretending that's a good point. But, that being said, the entire second amendment should be scrapped. Have a nice day.
6
A license isn't required to own or operate a car. Neither is registration or insurance. A blind person can purchase a car and drive it on their property if they wanted to. Nothing prevents a person from buying and owning a vehicle. Nothing should prevent a person from buying or owning a weapon either. You're missing the entire point. To your point even in constitutional carry states you cannot do anything you want with a gun. Murder and assault are already crimes. Threatening someone's life is already a crime. Guns themselves are also heavily "regulated" with safety features and other specifications. What's an even crazier point is that many areas with constitutional carry also have significantly less gun violence than other areas with a high amount of gun regulations. Almost as if it's not the guns. Wanting to scrap the 2A... You need to seriously reevaluate your position on this. Many instances throughout history the government have taken away its people's guns only to commit mass amounts of violence against them afterwards. Then not to mention the times our own government has used weapons against us and sometimes if it weren't for the 2A those people would've been helpless. Like the Battle of Athens. If it weren't for the 2A those people would've been screwed by the government. Then you have the Indians... They were forced to give up their weapons and put them in camps where they attempted to reeducate them. Or how about the Kent State Massacre. The list goes on.
-4
TLDR
-3
>Nothing should prevent a person from buying or owning a weapon either. You fucking kidding me? How about violent insanity? A history of abuse? Ties to terrorism or gangs? Blindness? Cerebral palsy? Hallucinatory paranoid episodes? You fucking kidding me?
1
These people are not kidding. They do not care if the insane have access and shoot up a school. They think they should be shot AFTER they kill your kids. They think that inconveniencing legal gun owners in ANY way is a bigger crime than a class full of dead children laying in a lake of blood.
3
No
1
Enjoy your mass shootings then
5
Thanks i will :)
1
Those all sound like reasons someone shouldn't be free to hurt others with ANY type of weapon including fists.
1
Um yes, these are reasons for separating a person from all weaponry
1
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
4
"You can absolutely not do whatever the hell you want with a car..." That's also true for firearms. Misuse of guns can come with heavy punishments. Let's not pretend that guns are unregulated and you "can do whatever the hell you want" with them. That's simply not true and tells me you aren't actually aware of the rules and regulations surrounding lawful use and responsible ownership.
1
That’s my point they’re so heavily regulated yet car accidents happen all the time because either irresponsible people get behind the wheel or criminals get behind the wheel- regardless of who it is everyone agrees it’s not fault of the car it’s fault of the person. And you can keep whisking that but that will quite literally never happen :) Toodles
1
I second this. It's becoming clear that the 2A needs to be amended to reflect the modern era and allows us to regulate guns as heavily as needed to end gun violence. Including banning them completely if need be. Which is what I believe.
1
No, your point is just deeply flawed. Because you compared regulating guns to regulating cars, but apparently didn't realize we have strict licensing and regulations when it comes to operating a car.
4
Yep. You could go on and on too. What about all the hamburgers that contributed to obesity and heart disease? Cigerettes, lung disease. Legal drug OD's, opiods? You add all of the things you can think of up and you've got more total deaths a year then guns will unless we get another civil war on our hands.
-2
We can't stop eating, we might be able to to stop using cars, but we can certainly stop using guns.
1
https://massshootingtracker.site/
3
"mass shooting" = 2 people. WAT
3
The overwhelming majority of what they consider to be a mass shooting are examples of inner city gang violence committed with handguns by illegally obtained weapons that won't be affected at all by the legislation they propose. Make no mistake, it's not about stopping shootings. It's about disarming the population to make it easier assert their authoritarian policies.
2
>”mass shooting” = 2 people *or* 1 obese person In all seriousness, that’ll be next.
-3
Almost every day. https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
7
How is this relevant? Crime exists therefore you can do whatever you want to innocent people?
-6
Time to move beyond daily mass shootings and gun culture.
8
Conflating gun culture and mass shooting together makes me not take your argument seriously cause clearly you don't know what you're talking about.
1
Let's end the madness.
5
Agreed, mandatory firearms training in high-school. And when you turn 21 you get issued your choice of long rifle and alcohol of choice. In serious note all arguments come from a place of bad faith and bad statistics. Until that changes, no solution can be made.
1
Plus, it doesn't matter what you take seriously or what you don't. It's not about you.
5
I mean it is if you advocate for taking my rights away. I'm not one to care about the past but, I'm not foolish enough to un-arm myself knowing people are at times racist or want to do harm to me.
1
It's not about you.
3
It's not about you!
2
https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/s/IOiYF7wstg
2
(It'snot about you)[https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/s/O8lwKEgEhL]
1
Least regarded gun control advocate. Thanks for the thoughtful commentary.
4
>Time to move beyond daily mass shootings and ~~gun~~ **ghetto** culture. Fixed that for ya, since, you know, most of these "mass shootings" are the result of gang and other criminal activity. Are you gonna address *that* problem, or continue attacking the normal innocent people?
2
It's not about me.
1
Tell me you're from a welfare state, without telling me you're from a welfare state.
4
So I live in Canada where there’s pretty strict gun laws and still I turn on the news and just about everyday there’s a shooting or stabbing or a car plowing through a group of people just in the Toronto area. Guns have been around for hundreds of years, knives have been around for many thousands of years and it seems like these are relatively new issues (past 60 years or so). It’s obviously a mental health problem. The solution is not just getting rid of guns trust me Canada is trying that and if the US would try that you’d have a civil war which would easily end up deadlier than most wars in history.
1
It will take some courage to get beyond the [myths](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-myths-the-gun-lobby-perpetuates-following-mass-shootings/) that you have mentioned. Let's and this madness.
1
https://thepathforwardonguns.com
4
Sure just ignore everything else I said. You really think people in bad mental states don’t commit mass murder? How would you take all the guns away if you could?
2
It's not about me.
2
You are the one says end the madness how should you do it? I’m just curious as I see gun issues in my country where gun laws are in place and your country where they are less strict. You should be open to conversation about such an important issue
2
It's not about me.
1
You don’t care about kids being killed?
1
You sure as shit pretend it is when you’re virtue signaling. Maybe if you had something other than empty space between your ears, you’d realize something.
1
Nice link, would be better if they weren't constantly linking to themselves or other articles which themselves were linking to other news publications that then linked to other articles with no ends to the sources. They also seem to have a couple sources which didn't even link to anything other than a "trust me bro, I heard it from these guys somewhere". They also pointed to a couple databases that when gone through shows the opposite of their claims, and also cherry picked data from other articles that didn't support their narrative. If I wrote that little piece there and handed it in as a school paper I would of probably failed. Also the NRA isn't the big boogyman the "gun control advocates" thinks they are in that article. There were an absolute ton of accusations against them with no good evidence, and that's disregarding that the NRA is doing next to nothing to support gun rights as a whole.
4
And despite the fact that it happens everyday the stats for 2023 were: 43,071 deaths *(24,090 of that were suicides which could be considered victimless but we'll leave them in the numbers)* and 36,391 injured. source: [https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls](https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls) That means a total of 79,462 people in US were affected by gun violence. There were 336 million people in the US in 2023. If we do the math: 79,462 / 336,000,000 = 0.0002364 So 0.02% of the population experienced a gun related injury or death. Meaning 99.98% of the population won't ever be impacted by gun violence in a given year. When most people see the actual stats and are presented with how unlikely they are to be impacted by guns, they tend to stop worrying about it and ask their lawmakers to instead focus on things more likely to impact their lives like taxes and jobs and healthcare and pretty much everything else.
2
>So 0.02% of the population experienced a gun related injury or death. Meaning 99.98% of the population won't ever be impacted by gun violence in a given year. And in reality, that likelihood isn't spread evenly - its very much affected by your neighborhood and lifestyle. For most people its actually .0002%, and then there are criminals in certain parts of the US who probably have a 2% chance each year.
1
Exactly! Not only only is it very rare but it is also something a person has some aspect of control over to further reduce the risks. For example leaving high crime areas and making personal choices to be aware of ones surroundings and not making themselves appear as an easy target for crime. Also choosing to be a nice, polite, respectful person who avoids, and doesn't instigate, confrontations also helps to further reduce the chances of being in a violent encounter where a gun could get used.
1
Suicide is gun "violence" lmao
1
Lol I agree. It's a sad personal choice but it definitely is not an act of violence towards others.
1
Thoughts an prayers is the only solution, it's worked so well so far.
1
Well you put no thought into your beliefs and that's a huge part of why we have this problem.
2
I need some of what you are smoking lol.
1
"I strongly believe that I shouldn't be sightly inconvenienced by having to prove I'm mentally competent enough to own a limited amount of firearms that can't mow downa grade school in six seconds, even though it has been demonstrated by every other country on earth that isn't Somalia to save untold amounts of lives". I had to spend god knows how much to get a drivers licence because we've accepted that having people being sane, sober, and competent before they get behind the wheel of something that can cause mass death is /kind of important/.
1
Cool. Wonderful thinking. So, you should never again get to speak in public on any topic of importance - or, God forbid, vote in elections - until you can prove *to the satisfaction of people who probably don't agree with you* that you're competent and trustworthy by their standards?
1
Well none of those are regularly used to murder kids because nobody would give it up to the local incel soooooo no...
1
Are you sure? I have been told that a vote for \[insert political candidate from either party\] will lead to all kinds of problems, death of America, etc.
1
Well in trump's case it's true, but that doesn't directly cause kids to be murdered in cold blood.
1
Well I'm glad that we've settled that words are not violence. Because there's quite a few people arguing that right now!
1
Might be a stronger argument if not for the way many people drive. All the time, money, and effort spent to learn how to drive properly, and we still end up with apparent chaos on the roads. Obviously, people need to learn these things, but we typically don't stack new laws on top of the existing ones with driving because it quickly becomes a case of diminishing returns; people who don't care about acting in a disciplined manner can quite quickly "forget" how to.
1
And yet people still commit thousands of crimes in vehicles every year. Why do you think "licensing" is some kind of magic spell that stops that from happening?
1
Lol wtf kind of logic is this What about all the nukes that DON'T explode? What about all the cyanide that DOESN'T poison people? I've never blown up a single person with dynamite, therefore I should be able to carry as much of it in my car as I want.
1
Sure, but you’re responsible for the damages it causes. Is that a risk you are willing to take? If you don’t make it, your family is the ones who pays. Still willing?
1
Why can cops use seeing a gun as justification to shoot someone? If guns are protected by the second amendment I should be able to have mine in my hand while interacting with a police officer for my own safety,
1
And pointed at them too.. ya know for your own safety
1
I mean until I pull the trigger I’m just exercising my second amendment rights and that can’t be infringed
1
I hope you think so. I’ve got a Darwin Award for you, the FAFO edition
1
Do we have a right to bear arms or not?
1
Only to bear arms, nothing else.
1
We have more than shooting a day. Give those guns time to kill people man; they likely WILL shoot someone eventually if you just give them a chance!
1
LOL STFU you fucking idiot. This couldn't happen in any country besides America cause you are brainwashed.
1
Because all it takes is a set of bad events in a row for those "innocent people" to become just as full of hate and vitriol as a "criminal" guns aren't a solution they are a problem. Always have been..
1
So you should go to prison for all the crimes you might commit? Can't be too careful, and according to you, you have no right to object. You could have a bad day after all.
1
Christ this sub is full of progun lack of reading comprehension nutjobs. Gun control works you just don't like that fact.
1
You're incapable of thinking outside of your narrow obsession with gun control to see the principles at play and how it would affect the very nature of our form of government, but anyone who can is a "nutjob" who "lacks reading comprehension"? Right, bud. We're obviously all convinced by your droning.
1
what about all the billions of people who are not murders? if murders are a problem why didn't they kill anyone? thats why you argue isnt sound, you guys dont need to have such easy access to handguns. handguns are literally banned in my country because of how easily you can conceal it. guess how much gun crime my country has.
1
>what about all the billions of people who are not murders? if murders are a problem why didn't they kill anyone? Because they're not murderers and *only the murderers* are the problem. What kind of argument is this supposed to be? >thats why you argue isnt sound, you guys dont need to have such easy access to handguns. handguns are literally banned in my country because of how easily you can conceal it. guess how much gun crime my country has. So either your country has no murders at all, or - wait for it - people who can't get handguns use something else. Are you happier because people in your country get murdered with fire, knives, clubs, cars, and people's bare hands?
1
my argument was mocking your original comment, thats basically what your saying. yes every country has crime but knife crime is more difficult because you cant easily conceal a machete, you can hide a little knife but you need to do some serious stabbing to actually kill someone with it. but with guns its very easy to claim a life, and a handgun us very concealable. besides, my country doesn't hang knives on the wall and made it a part of our culture essentially.
1
So you're completely ignorant of how societies work or the nature of crime. Got it. Are you aware that the UK has banned carrying anything in public that could conceivably be used as a weapon because they believe what you believe? Is that the world you want to live in? And are you aware that better, more civilized people don't want to live in that world with you?
1
thats just a lie, i live in the uk and thats not the case. its blades, we have banned blades outside the house and a full ban on concealed blades like balisongs and flip knives. while we can be extreme with the blades thing sometimes, you dont really need to carry a blade outside so it barely affects anyone and is a minor problem. so to answer your question when asked properly: i dont mind living in a world where you are not allowed to carry blades in public.
17
Gang bangers doing gang bang shit and law-abiding citizens get to suffer for it? Yeah stfu. If they went anywhere else in Missouri that wouldn't have happened. So the one big blue area has an African American gun violence problem and the whole country has to just act like that's totally not a thing. Then reclassify everything else to make it a mass shooting when it's gang related, until it makes it look bad and you have to drop other stats to form a narrative.
-3
This isn't a gang related shooting. This type of shooting has been escalating all over the country, big cities and small cities. In ABQ, it's a new wave of epidemic. It involves just regular daily disagreements between people - disrespect - getting escalated to shooting. It is a cultural phenomenon escalated and made so much worse because of our gun problem. Trying to call this organized gang violence or "gang banging" isn't even close to accurate and it's essentially racist. The genesis of most of these shootings is a tiny slight between two people being escalated into a shooting match. In a shooting in KC last month, one person shot another person because he scuffed his sneakers. Even taking KC out of it, MO has tons of crime, way above the national average, and it's like this all over the rust belt, sun belt, and all through the secondary and third-tier cities. Awful culture glorifying violence and stoking fear at every turn, corrupt and inefficient local governments, state government who actively make things worse, and a toxic mix of guns.
6
It’s actually a fair and cohesive argument to say that the issue is societal but the abundance of firearms exacerbates the problem and creates opportunities for events like this. The problems are: 1. Too few people on the side of gun control articulate it this way, and instead fuel political tensions by only focusing on the call to strip guns away from people. 2. There are way too many firearms in circulation for the idea of a mass confiscation to be anything but laughable. 3. The invention of 3D printing would make such a confiscation effort a total waste of time and money, on top of likely triggering a large scale violent conflict. 4. And this is the most important one; we have a right, guaranteed by the Constitution, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense and as a bulwark against government tyranny. You are welcome to move to somewhere that doesn’t guarantee that right.
2
I generally agree with your points. 1. It shouldn't be only on one group of people to propose solutions. The main problem that gun control advocates is that they do not hold gun rights activists accountable to propose solutions. The general blanket statement "we have a mental health problem in this country" is accurate but unrelated to the gun problem. Generally speaking, in most civilized countries, a person who is wildly anti-government and hoarding guns and ammo would be deemed mentally unfit, and his weapons would be taken. In the US, this can't be considered mentally unfit, because it would sweep up hundreds or thousands of people. Likewise, people saying "this is a gang problem", are also just abdicating solutions. The simple fact is that every city in the country has an anti-gang unit, and despite massive investent, the police haven't stopped (only shrunk) gangs. Ultimately, there is a 1st amendment right to be in a gang, just like there is a 2nd amendment right to own a gun. I am open to any solution that isn't systematically racist, and is legally enforceable, to curb gun violence. Nothing - no one thing - that any gun rights activist has proposed from "allowing God in schools" to "thoughts and prayers" has had any effect on gun violence rates. As long as the proposal is effective, legal, and not racist, let's hear those proposals. Of course, the guns right activists will never make those proposals, because they don't exist. 2. No one is proposing mass confiscation. 3. See #2. 4. Agreed. The solution that most people want, and most civilized countries have, isn't mass confiscation, it's just simply registration. It's already illegal to transfer guns to ineligible people (minors, criminals, drug addicts, etc). This rule is unenforceable. The answer is gun violence is simply to register guns, to a natural owner, from time of manufacture to the time of destruction. Once a year, the police come to inspect your gun collection, ensure you have them, that they are properly secured, and that's that. Gun sales or transfers are done by a FFL or at a police station, and that's that. If you are in possession of an unregistered gun, the gun is destroyed and you go to jail, lose your right to own guns when you get out. That's it. Super simple. Everyone can still own hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammo, as many guns as you want, all the types, etc. And we can start going to parades again without worrying about getting shot in the fucking face for no good reason. Gangs would be deeply impacted (but not eliminated) - the primary source of gang weapons (i.e. straw purchases) would dry up over night. We'd have as many or more guns owned than now, etc. Before you complain about how easy would be for the government to do a mass confiscation if in the event of a tyrannical takeover, just remember: you yourself said there are just too many to do mass gun confiscation. Finally, regarding a "bulwark against tyranny". I think we can pretty much retire this concept as a useful argument. The government was about 90 minutes from being overthrown on January 6th. It wasn't citizens with guns that stopped the overthrow, it was 800 cops with guns and nightsticks and tazers and tear gas. When the moment of truth came, guns in the hands of citizens.. did nothing. Luckily, the police were just able to put down the rebellion before Congress was overthrown. It was pretty close. A few cops did heros work and protected Congress and the constitutional order from being destroyed. Pretty lucky. But in general it validates the idea that really the purpose of guns isn't to preserve the right of the people to reject a tyrannical government, but rather, to protect themselves from other citizens when the government fails to protect them. That is a much more real, present, and realistic threat, and one which guns are proven to be very useful: when the police are too busy or on soft-strike, your own firearm might be the only thing left for you to rely on. That is the right we should be laser focused on, not the unproven claim that personal firearms are a solution to government tyranny. That has proven to be a massive disaster, and just inspires more lawlessness.
2
> **No one** is proposing mass confiscation. No one? Watch this: https://youtu.be/yW1HPoqqB_8?si=FnqZQ3K_3jbH_79t
1
I don't want the police in my house ever, much less once a year. I shouldn't have to choose between the 2nd amendment and 4th amendment. Also the government wasn't "90 minutes from being overthrown", do you really think that anything that could have been done at the capital on J6 would result in an overthrow of the government? The gun control movement wants to ban all guns ultimately, right now they might say they just want this or just want that, but once they get their current agenda passed they aren't going to stop. Do you think that if the next piece of gun control gets passed that Brady, Every Town, MDA, etc are going to dissolve? No, they'll move on to the next thing, whatever you give them is never enough. The NFA wasn't enough, the GCA wasn't enough, the Hughes amendment wasn't enough, nothing short of banning all guns will be enough in the long term for these people.
1
> instead fuel political tensions by only focusing on the call to strip guns away from people. See, the problem is, literally any effective form of gun control involves separating the offender from the gun BEFORE they've shot someone. Which inherently means they still fall under the "responsible gun owner" label that gun fans viciously defend. I genuinely don't know how to advocate for gun control without falling into this trap. Nearly every offer is a "law abiding citizen" until they suddenly aren't, or they acquire their gun from a "responsible gun owner" who wasn't responsible enough to secure their firearm. It's an impossible situation. We can't move forward with proactive gun control because any control, no matter how reasonable, is framed as "punishing law abiding citizens". Especially the ones who are about to snap.
1
We should legalize duels. I mean, yes, the idea is crazy. But hear me out: All duels have to be agreed upon by a local official, to ensure both parties are in good mental health and has a will. Both duelists waive their rights to life or lawsuit if killed/injured. A time and location is set, weapons vary but must be agreed upon by both parties. Duels can be live-streamed on an official government website. Loser is either publicly shamed or killed. No more spinning the block on the ops. No more shooting up a parade because someone stepped on your J’s. Crips and Bloods train their best duelists to champion battles for them. No collateral damage. If the cia can get impoverished black communities addicted to crack, they can get them addicted to legalized dueling.
1
This reads like a inspiration for an animated web series. Where criminals have some code of honor and wouldn't dare shame their fellow syndicate peers, on pain of 💀.
1
So what stops them from just going after the winner when the duel is over
1
Death or serious injury, probably.
3
Well full gang style violence is higher than ever without the proliferation of said gangs. I'm from Chicago, cousin was a disciple. Murdered in 06. Even back then people were getting out of the hard-core initiations and were dealing across lines to make more $. They also tended to get killed off way more. Nowadays you can have the same "gang" getting represented but 3 streets over is the same gang, and they're all still killing each other. What you describe is road rage without the road. And the simple fact that will always be true, the only sure fire way, is to have good guys with guns massively outnumber the bad guys. Don't give them a chance to let politicized judges let them out with a promise to reappear, which almost every time will result with a fugitive. One that's left to terrorize the public even more. And going back to outlaw days. We named certain people outlaws because they existed outside the law. If you went up to one and shot them in the back, you were called a hero. Handicapping the good guys with guns as we see happening, while ignoring the bad guys with guns is why we are where we are. And no where in the media is this allowed because it's counter to the narrative. It's all ever about gun grabbing. And I'm glad that I live in a state that won't stand for it. To make an ammendment reversing the 2nd, we need a 2/3rds vote in the house and congress and that aint ever gonna happen. So civil war is threatened by politicians that want to act in a treasonous way. A civil war that the military won't fight and the side that won't just leave the good guys with guns alone, can't win. Which is why we have more illegals mostly fighting age males coming up from the border, who now outnumber the amount of population in the least 5 populated states, and out pacing our entire countries birth rate. Force them into the military and they won't see a problem killing Americans. Yapping on about gun crime and statistics and political slants is accomplishing nothing. The law is on our side. Wanna fix it, create an industry of armed security everywhere, separate of the cops. Like... a militia. Armed teachers in every single classroom. Amnesty for anyone that puts down criminals with firearms. That would change the culture. That would improve every measurable crime statistic.
1
>What you describe is road rage without the road. And the simple fact that will always be true, the only sure fire way, is to have good guys with guns massively outnumber the bad guys. There were over 800 cops in downtown KC that day. Over 800 armed officers. You guys consider them "good guys with guns", right? What exactly did they do to stop them? If I recall it was unarmed civilians who tackled the guy after he started running away. What about Uvalde? Cops had the school surrounded, they didn't do jack shit. Good guys with guns my ass. A mother had to run in to ensure the safety of her child in the middle of an active shooting. So get the fuck out of here with that "good guy with a gun" bullshit because it's been proven that they don't do jack shit.
1
More than 1 mass shooting per day so far this year...
2
I invite you to read the last sentence I wrote the 1st time around. Then pretend I wrote it again here.
1
Didn't know a bunch of kids at a parade were in a gang, my bad.
2
Their fuck up was being next to gang bangers because gang bangers gonna do gang banging shit. Now in the news, we get to hear all day every day about a dead woman and 9 hurt kids, but not the gang bangers. Last year there was a mass shooting in Miami. No one saw anything, but thats because it was gang bangers ambushing other gang bangers. Called a mass shooting, when it was not. And the community helped the gang bangers by not being snitches. Fix that. Collateral damage stops happening as much. You're furthering the narrative and making innocent law abiding citizens less safe. You're standing on the corpses of children not wanting to solve the problem and want more piles of dead children to further your agenda. You're deplorable.
1
They have not even said anything about two people with guns other than they are juveniles... No information at all if they are in a gang or how they got the guns.... It's real funny to see you making up stuff though, I live in KC, and have been following this.... The fuck are you on about? You are bushing off mass shootings and you think I am deployable? Holy shit my man, you have lost it, lol.
2
You just gobble up the narrative without even thinking about things yourself huh? It's like you've been programmed.
0
Is the narative the police statement? Is the only way I am "Thinking for myself" is if I think the police are lying? Maybe you could.spend 5 minutes on google friend.
1
Or howabout 5 min on [youtube?](https://youtu.be/vHdDtqwdImE?feature=shared) 3 involved. One reported shot in the face. A bunch of hoodlums but only 2 reported. 3 detained, 2 arrested, 1 let go. A perp treated as a vic maybe? Wouldn't be the 1st time that's happened. People talking plenty but you're just gonna go on and on about "muh narrative".
1
Cool, you have no source that says they are in a gang, thanks for admitting you are an idiot. :)
1
Gang banger has evolved to not mean actual gang. They're mostly all posers. Wannabe gang bangers. No militarized chain of command exists anymore. The actual gangs that care about what gang they're in and opponents are, are all in prisons. On the outside they all get along if there's a profit to be made. There's a ton of infighting and that's why you don't see actual gang warfare anymore. Thanks for proving you are incapable of very basic modern general truths known to basically everyone.
1
[You're doing a predictably shitty job then.](https://youtu.be/vHdDtqwdImE?feature=shared)
5
Black Guns Matter!
3
Amen
2
Amen brother, no matter our race we are united under the second
5
There is no such thing as “sensible” gun policy
1
There's plenty of sensible gun policy. - Don't point a gun at someone if not necessary (eg: brandishing). - Don't shoot (for fun) in areas where it's dangerous & not necessary (eg: in city limits, backyard, etc.). - You are responsible for every shot you make (unless you're a cop, this part is not sensible tbf). - Don't shoot someone outside of life/death or grave bodily harm situations (unless you're a cop, that's not sensible). There are more.
2
These "sensible" policies you speak of are VERY broad to the degree of not being sensible in some cases. Yes, don't needlessly brandish a firearm. I would agree with urban areas as the population density and property damages makes recreational shooting problematic, but rural areas should have no need to restrict backyard recreational shooting as long as the bullets stay in your property and close neighbors don't mind the noise. Yes, everyone is responsible for every bullet they fire, I don't understand about the "unless your a cop" part as they too need to be responsible for every bullet they fire so they don't strike a innocent person or their fellow officers. Yes, don't shoot someone unless you believe your life or way or living is threatened. I still don't understand about the "unless your a cop" as there doesn't seem to be much of a change for that except for adding innocent life to it to be something like "...unless your life or way of life, or an innocents life or way of life..."
2
Okay so there ARE sensible gun policies. Cool.
1
Yes, and they are already in place. The "sensible gun policies" being pushed to become laws are no longer sensible and downright stupid.
1
When did we hit the sweet spot for gun control, do you think? 2000s? 1980s? And why hasn't gun crime gone down? Are we at an acceptable level?
1
Gun control has been increasing since the 1960s yet crime as well as gun crime has been skyrocketing. Most modern gun control measures focus on things outside what would of stopped the crimes. I have said it before that politicians are using gun control as a bandaid that is going on a layer of bandaids that are covering a festering wound. Putting the gun control bandaid isn't going to fix the root problem and we as communities need to find and stitch close the wound so we can solve the problem.
0
>Gun control has been increasing since the 1960s yet crime as well as gun crime has been skyrocketing. False. There are also literally hundreds of millions more guns in circulation since the 1960s. >Putting the gun control bandaid isn't going to fix the root problem The root problem is the guns.
1
That is sensible, and law abiding citizens follow those laws. Two teenagers did not and opened up fire over a private dispute. Sounds like they may have been involved with some gang action
1
So give guns to toddlers then?
4
"won't somebody think of the children" The impotent cry of an adult who would rather the government take your adult freedom away and have us all live under authority's thumb like a toddler, than hold people responsible for their actions.
2
But it's societies fault they're dirtbag criminals. They was good boys.
3
Maybe deal with the ghetto culture the 2 gunmen belonged too.
2
Correct me if I’m wrong but the gun wouldn’t have gone to the parade and shot up the crowd without the dumbass pulling the trigger… also the gun is a miners fan I heard
2
Yes if we give our corrupt government more control over us surely things will get better /s
1
I mean literally anything would be better than damn there daily mass shootings
1
The vast majority of mass shootings (almost all firearm related crime as well) are gang related. In areas that have never been helped, and never will be helped so long as they can ignore it. There are other avenues we could take to reduce or eliminate ‘mass shootings’. Giving up our guns to give the government more power over us seems far more dangerous. Over 250 million people have been killed by their leaders in power over the past 100 years, and that is a very conservative estimate.
1
Go preach that in chi-raq you clown 🤡🤡🤡
1
Why don’t we pass a law making mass shootings illegal?
2
I mean I don't agree with you're point at all but yeah stupid you got banned for that
1
Yeah the linked tweet doesn’t say anything about 100% removal of all guns. It doesn’t say we are chopping our hands off to prevent people from pulling a trigger. To conflate it to castrating all men because some people rape is a disingenuous argument.
2
Ah so this is the new conservative cesspool
1
Yes. You'll find the progressive cesspool across most of the internet because stupidity spreads like the plague, where rationality gets *censored*.
1
What exactly is so conservative about this post?
2
We have a hood rat problem, not a gun problem.
2
Can we just name this sub r/conservative?
2
Well considering it’s far more likely to be banned on Reddit for having a Conservative viewpoint, you’re going to end up with a disproportionate number of conservatives in a sub for people who’ve been banned.
1
You got banned for the rules related to self harm... It's sort of dumb in this case because you obviously said it in jest.... but if someone takes it literal or a bit did it, it is very straight forward.
1
I’m just gonna say, if someone took that literally and did it, good.
1
Another option for reviewing removed content is your ***Rev***eddit [user page](https://www.reveddit.com/y/A!n!g!r!y!P!r!a!e!t!o!r!i!a!n?all=true). The [real-time extension](https://www.reveddit.com/add-ons/direct/) alerts you when a moderator removes your content, and the [linker extension](https://www.reveddit.com/add-ons/linker) provides [buttons](https://i.imgur.com/0BAImPq.png) for viewing removed content. There's also a [shortcut for iOS](https://www.icloud.com/shortcuts/62bc7570613c42cb8b851fad264136df). The parent commenter can reply with 'delete' to remove this comment. This bot only operates in authorized subreddits. To support this tool, [post it on your profile](https://old.reddit.com/user/me/submit?title=See+which+comments+of+yours+have+been+removed&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reveddit.com%2Fabout%2F) and select ['pin to profile'](https://i.imgur.com/uq9AGMV.png).   [^(F.A.Q.)](https://www.reveddit.com/about/f.a.q./) ^| [^(v/reveddit)](https://www.reveddit.com/v/reveddit/-redirect) ^| [^(support me)](https://www.reveddit.com/about/donate) ^| [^(share)](https://old.reddit.com/user/me/submit?title=See+which+comments+of+yours+have+been+removed&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reveddit.com%2Fabout%2F) ^& [^('pin to profile')](https://i.imgur.com/uq9AGMV.png)
1
Ya but can you shoot 20 people in 10 seconds with your dick from 50 feet away?
1
You can’t?
1
No but a car can cover that distance pretty well.
2
Like the guy at a Christmas parade a couple years ago. Plowed thru a barrier and aimed for the people on the sidewalk with his SUV.
1
Rookie numbers.
1
That is a fair response so why create the echo chamber. There is probably another one where OP would get banned so everyone can go on never learning through robust discussion and because the amount of censorship is not displayed some people think most others agree with them..
1
Idk, I'm just making fun of the ridiculousness of comparing gun violence to rape.
2
It's not really ridiculous. They both require moral depravity
1
This sub has some real room temp IQ.
1
It's ok. Don't be hard on yourself
1
There were close to a million people in that crowd. You could rent a U-haul and do considerably more damage than that. You could create a cloud of chlorine gas with a couple chemicals from your local grocery store. Hell, you could probably do considerable damage with a fairly small knife in a crowd that dense, and that would be more difficult for authorities to catch on to.
-2
But you need a license to drive a U-Haul, don't you?
4
Do what they do with most gun crimes- obtain and operate the tool illegally. In this case, the u-haul.
4
See.. that's the thing about crimes... You can't commit one legally.
1
You believe we need background checks?
1
I'm just asking the question of whether a U-Haul needs a license to acquire
2
Never rented one. I'd assume you'd need a driving liscense, yes. Most people need one to be functioning memebers of society these days.
1
As someone who has had to rent out a U-Haul a couple times, yes you need a license to rent one out. However the U-Haul do not have a good level of anti theft features a normal car would have and are easy to steal. Last I checked you don't need to show a license to steal something though.
1
Yes, but this is a straw man. No one, not even the Libertarians, have ever been arguing about the issuance of gun licenses. At least, not recently anyway.
-2
Depends on which state, in some they don't even bother to pull people over. Also, driving = privilege, gun = right I would like to point out btw, that words are far more dangerous then guns. Words can cause people to be violent, to inspire people, or to divide people, yet despite the danger words present, each person is given the right to speak to the masses, with no permit needed.
1
I find it funny that we often act like driving is a privilege that can be revoked. When realistically there's not enough actual enforcement of the law to make that reality (people drive without licenses and insurance all the time). While that's imo a good thing because less enforcement of laws means more freedom, it also makes the conversations on rights pretty moot. Many of your "rights" are without a doubt infringed upon in the letter of the law, but in practice, you likely only suffer for violating the law if suffering is what you deserve (you screwed up bad enough to get the attention of the law, perhaps many times).
1
But if you just say that a car is an armament, is it now a right?
1
Not if you steal it, like those guns were more than likely stolen as well.
1
Technically you only need a license to rent it. You could do a straw purchase of a Uhaul...
1
You have to be 18 to buy a gun yet these two kids got them. You can steal a u-haul easier than stealing a gun.
1
Are we going to pretend that a drivers license is some sacred license that only the absolute most qualified people can get? Or is it something we hand out to 16yr olds who can drive through some cones? Let’s not pretend that the only way to drive a motorized vehicle is with a license, if you can steal and operate a gun, you can steal and operate a car
1
Sure, but it's a basic barrier to entry that requires a standard entry level of care.
1
So do you think making gun licenses a thing will somehow stop people from illegally acquiring guns? These teenagers who shot all these people, were not legally able to attain these weapons, so how did they? Illegally.
1
If there's a standard license scheme that all guns are first sold through, and that lindens can be taken away for careless storage or use of a firearm, I most certainly think theft of guns and illegal guns would go down. Where exactly did they get the guns? What barriers were there? Perhaps it wouldn't stop every instance but it would stop most.
1
Worse school killing to date is still not with a gun interestingly enough as well.
1
Fill the U-Hual with homemade explosives and it could have been worse than Oklahoma City
1
I can.
1
From what sub?
6
It wasn’t the sub that banned me. It was Reddit itself.
2
That pretty much covers large swaths of Reddit at this point.
1
This thread is a right wing whine fest.
1
Germanys civilian population was disarmed by the west after WW1 and look at what happened because of it
2
Even the more recent Australian gun buyback didn't work as much as people said it did. A very temporary decrease in homicides for an increase in rapes and robberies.
1
[removed]
1
If you take away guns because some people are misusing their rights then it's a privilege not a right.
1
Not a gun problem a culture problem
1
Another culture problem.
1
r/WhitePeopleTwitter is down the hall to the left, thanks
1
It’s a combination of guns, fear and mental health. Anything less than that realization is disingenuous to fixing the underlying problem, imo. Your comment is pretty fucking corny though
1
So these little thugs out looking for new tear drop tattoos fell under which of these hypothetical categories you just listed?
1
You don’t think these people that committed heinous crimes are beyond fucked up mentally? Like that isn’t within the realm of possibility? People aren’t born bad. It’s an amalgamation of their environment and childhood experiences that build them into the adult they are. If they’re so stunted that shooting people is what they think they need to do, like yeah most normal well-adjusted people don’t do that. Does that excuse it? Fuck no. Throw the book at them. Let them learn to be better while incarcerated.
1
Life in prison isn’t a deterrent. There are a few other punishments we should be doing that would be much more effective for other future human shit bags to see. These thugs aren’t mentally ill, they are evil
1
It should be. That’s the thing, they don’t start out as evil, so maybe we fixing that problem before people get to this point should be an objective, as a society?
1
I refuse to believe our entire society is responsible for thug culture
1
They aren’t as a whole. But maybe if they grew up in an environment that didn’t promote that behavior, they may not have felt the need to do violence?
1
Lol at you for thinking that it is cool to make light of children getting hurt with a chudboi joke. Common sense gun control or no guns, make a choice. 
1
Yeah good luck with that.
1
Automatic charges for whoever the guns are registered to when a minor shoots someone. No reason not to do this.
1
And If the gun is stolen and passed over multiple times then what
1
Control your guns, and report them stolen if stolen. Automatic charges otherwise.
1
The majority of legalgun owners who have guns stolen report them as stolen. The problem is most are never recovered like most stolen items. Most guns used in crimes have been either passed around multiple times and in a lot of cases have multiple homicides and shootings linked to them. Then most of them also have the serial numbers scrubbed off.
1
I would need statistics on shootings by minors, but I'd wager most get them from their parents, who deserve charges for allowing that to happen. Any downside to a rule this?
1
It depends on the type of shooting honestly. Inner city it's likely a street gun that's been passed around it ain't exactly uncommon for middle schoolers to be walking around with guns in certain areas. The school shootings that make the news are far from the majority of shootings involving minors
1
So any downside to a rule like this?
1
The best argument that can be brought up is that this jump in violence is new, while mass gun-ownership is not. Therefore, something other than guns must be the issue
1
Those gun laws already in place *sure did* keep those juveniles from getting guns they weren't supposed to have! I bet *more* gun laws will stop the criminals! *Clearly* laws prevent criminals from breaking them! Wait....
1
Why have any laws at all then?
1
Because you know who can follow them and respect society and who can't. You have law to keep order. Those who choose violence and chaos have shown why we need laws.
1
We all know what the real problem is. It’s not guns. Come on people. Stop being a pussy and let’s actually admit what kind of problem this is. Look I know I’m a pussy too. But we all know it’s the damned white people in this country toting guns and their gang violence. 99.99 percent of all mass shootings are committed by white gang members in the inner city. This is just pure undeniable fact. Sorry but it is.
1
You can’t pull out your Dick in public…
1
Most places also have anti-brandishing laws. So, yes, you can’t pull out your gun in public either. It’s already illegal
1
Kids aren’t even buried yet and this douche Rich is already standing on their graves
1
We all know the real answer but it's easier to blame guns I guess
1
When are we all going to acknowledge a mental health crisis in our country, and reopen all the psychiatric hospitals we shut down?
1
We have a mental health problem in this country. We have a lack of respect for human life problem in this country. We have a violent crime problem in this country. Gun violence is a by-product. Until we address the real problem, gun violence will continue.
1
I'll lay dead on the ground before my guns are ever confiscated. My rights will not be infringed to make some redditor feel safe. I laugh at you, smooth brains!
1
Any time you don't go with the narrative on Reddit it's a ban.
1
Guns are not a problem
1
It was two 13 and 14 year old black gangbangers. Gun control wouldn’t have done shit.
1
No gun problem. We have a youth problem.
1
There’s a violence problem, not a gun problem.
1
There is an irrefutable correlation between the spike of SSRIs since the mid 90s to the phenomenon of School Shootings occurring. Correlation isn’t causation but it’s pretty fucking weird thats 100% of school shooters were on SSRIs.
1
Completely agree, but the argument I’ve heard that does seem to carry water is: “Mentally healthy people don’t commit mass violence, and since the invention of SSRIs and MAOIs, mentally unhealthy people are on them. But, that doesn’t change the fact that there were mentally unhealthy people before the arrival of those drugs and there were NOT mass shootings, at least to the degree that there are now. Not disagreeing with you, just presenting what I’ve found to be a fair argument.
1
Yeah. Its just too obvious to be ignored that they start prescribing children SSRI in the mid 90s, and then Columbine and onward mass shooting become a thing. And its hard to ignore that everyone still had guns in the 80s and prior, so what changed? The only other answers are the culture of america changed. So what, they blame video games? Movies? What drastic change occurred in the culture of America from 1989 to 1999(Columbine). We could say the maybe the internet, hyper sensitivity to a new mode of media and fps shooter games. We could say Nu Metal and Gangster rap. But that all seems like a psy op conspiracy theory straight out of alex jones. The obvious truth(to me) is the spike of prescriptions of SSRIs for children.
1
I tend to agree. It is for sure a Hell of a coincidence… The MSEs before the 80s tended to involve people with significant mental health issues as well; especially schizophrenia, which to this day we don’t know the cause of but we know there seems to be a genetic factor and a link between psychotropic/psychoactive drug use in adolescence.
1
Reddit has turned into a dumpster fire of intellectually stunted children who can't see the complexity and nuance in reality.
1
Because criminals are going to obey laws, right.
1
I’ll never understand the people who want to outright ban guns, the people who are fucking idiotic enough to harm others won’t be stopped by a ban. Someones psychopathy isn’t fucking changed by a goddam legal barrier, if a mentally ill motherfucker wants to hurt someone, he will find a way to. Look at the EU’s non-gun violence, their massive amounts of terrorist attacks compared to the U.S., honestly it seems like the lack of guns over there is actively harming them
1
UK has been doing great with their acid/knife attacks. Wonder what their problem is, if it's not gun ownership? Oh yeah, we let people who've lost their damn minds walk amongst us. Lock up the crazies again. People might not cling to their defensive weapons so tightly after we've re-institutionalized the schizos and maniacs. Clearly the issue is so many people in today's society feel an urge to kill their neighbors, coworkers, or classmates. This is so clearly a mental health problem on such a big scale that it surprises me there's still people who think guns are the problem. I's the intent we should be focusing on, not the implement.
1
It’s not a gun problem, it is a people problem. Guns do not kill people. People do. We need to do a better job teaching people how to live
1
I’m all in. Just provide me with a solution that makes criminals obey laws.
1
I bet you wanted to rant about being a lunatic anti swift right-wing Maga shooter. I wish I could find all those comments and ask them how much TDS mental illness do the suffer from. The number of people on reddit jumping to that conclusion was disgusting, and to turn out, it was two young thugs fighting and then shooting. Yeah, what we need is gun control, not tougher criminal justice sentences
1
“When are we going to do something” is the new “Thoughts and Prayers”
1
Yeah just leave out that children also did the shooting
1
I own a few guns...they've never gone out and shot anyone.... I wonder why.
1
All these assholes in this thread saying “Do nothing. It’s the price for freedom,” are the reason this problem will never end. Let your kid get shot and then tell me that’s an acceptable price for your “freedom.” America is fucked. It’s a race to the bottom.
1
Can you point me to a comment that says, “Do nothing. It’s the price for freedom”?
1
You made the incredibly stupid rape/dick comparison to begin with, right? I know better than to engage in some bad faith goose chase with you. Look and read. Anyone with anything other than an affirmative response to the fact that we NEED to do something about this glaringly obvious and tragic issue is part of the problem. You can be pro gun AND pro common sense gun regulations and actual enforcement of gun laws that are on the books. What we have now is a disaster.
1
So you can’t point to a comment that says “Do nothing. It’s the price for freedom”?
1
Are you familiar with paraphrasing or are you dumb enough that you need everything spelled out for you? Get a brain.
1
So you are either too ideologically possessed to recognize an argument that differs from your own, or you are being intellectually dishonest. No one is saying “Do nothing. It’s the price for freedom.” People who don’t agree with idea of forfeiting their right to self defense because of the actions of others are presenting the argument that there is a mental health issue in this country that is creating a dangerous environment due to the fact that we are a nation that guarantees the right of its citizens to have access to firearms.
1
Ideologically possessed, that’s cute. When it comes to tightening up regulations around firearms and enforcing laws that are already on the books, the 2A crowd is absolutely saying “do nothing.” It’s not just one way or the other. There are many factors and those factors include ease of access to deadly weapons, poor/no systems in place to dispossess known unstable/dangerous individuals of their guns, and addressing mental health on a mass scale. It’s not either/or. It’s all of it.
1
What firearms laws are on the books and not enforced that would prevent mass shootings?
1
Another commenter mentioned how whoever supplied the kids who shot up the KC parade will never be pursued. Diligence like that could go a long way.
1
Well that’s an active investigation which means that, conveniently, we won’t know the accuracy of that claim until it’s over. Provided that the serial numbers on the weapons weren’t scratched off, and that the guns weren’t stolen but were illegally sold or gifted to the shooters, I’d say they will very likely bring charges against the person who supplied them.
1
Barring the gun lobby from DC would be a great start.
1
The NRA, the largest “gun lobbyist” has donated a little over $40,000,000 since 1998. I agree. Let’s get rid of the milk-toast, ineffectual racket that is the NRA and get an organization that actually works to protect the 2nd Amendment. That being said, I’d like to see how you get from blocking gun lobbyists from D.C., to stopping mass shootings.
1
Also, if you really read it, the 2nd allows for a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms. Says nothing about your every day dipshit being able to walk around with an AR strapped to his back. What you describe when you say we are guaranteed access to firearms is a gross misrepresentation of the intent of the amendment and disingenuous as hell.
1
This is an example of redefining terms to back up your arguments. The “militia” during the time the Constitution was written referred to all able bodied men. “Regulated” during that period meant “trained”. There was no standing army at the time, only a small navy. The people were expected to be the defense of the nation. To be that defense, they had to be armed and trained. But not trained by a government entity, because that would have just been an army. Trained as in educated. As in by their elders. Parents, teachers, older sibling, etc.
1
Look who’s redefining terms to fit their narrative. Something about pots and kettles. Anyway, here I am in a bad faith goose chase like I said I wouldn’t do. Disengaging. If you think the 2nd was written so any old fuckhead on the street should have the inalienable right to be strapped with a high powered rifle, you can go fuck a gun. That’s as disingenuous as it gets. The bar needs to be higher. It could start by existing. Until then I’ll just hope my kids don’t get gunned down by one of your fellow enthusiasts. I will not reply after this.
1
Eloquent bow out. You just want to outsource your safety to daddy Government. I guess boot polish caused brain damage.
1
Quit spouting misinformation about the militia wording. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It states both of these shall not be infringed. Nowhere does it say one is required for the other. Do some research before you regurgitate same falsities designed to change our constitution.
1
Do you think I have the power to change the constitution? I’m flattered. The intent, and what stood since its inception to 2008 is that the 2nd was written to ensure the federal gov could not infringe on States’ individual rights to defend themselves. They didn’t just write the whole first half of the amendment for no reason. The wording is specific and concise. The words “well-regulated militia” aren’t in there by mistake. In 2008 a conservative Supreme Court overturned the long standing precedent that did not view 2A as a mechanism to give every individual a right to keep and bear arms. By a margin of 5-4, hardly a landslide and, with more recent info coming out about Clarence Thomas’ sketchy dealings with corporate lobbyists, was undoubtedly influenced by the gun lobby. The framers had it right in the first place. They didn’t mean that every single person should be able to go down to Walmart and pick up an AR-15 just for fun. Any reasonable person would come to that conclusion because it’s so fucking obvious. And it’s so obvious because not a day goes by that we’re not overwhelmed with stories of gun violence and innocent bloodshed. But, hey, at least you get to feel cool at the range with your buddies. Totally worth it.
1
You need to brush up on reading comprehension of the English language. Tell me how you could possibly gain from that sentence in the constitution that to bear arms, it is required to have a well regulated militia. The amendment guarantees both without infringement. You're right the founders got it right the first time, because they added "shall not be infringed".
1
That’s not what I said. Maybe you should reexamine your reading comp skills. I said it’s about context. And the context does not reasonably conclude that it means a fucking free for all. In fact, we probably would be having this conversation if not for the efforts of private interests in 2008.
1
>Also, if you really read it, the 2nd allows for a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms. Says nothing about your every day dipshit being able to walk around with an AR strapped to his back. You did say that. >And the context does not reasonably conclude that it means a fucking free for all. They wrote their intent explicitly and in plain English. What context are you going on about after reading what I quoted from the amendment?
1
Why include the language at all? Just saying that the right to keep and bear arms covers all of it. Why bother? It’s clearly to make a distinction.
1
My main point is that the Supreme Court visited this issue in like 1940 and the ruling agreed with the interpretation that I agree with today. It stood for 70 years until gun lobby had an opening to sway the court in 2008. Look what happens to gun deaths after 2008, particularly suicide. I know correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation, but there is a clear correlation. I just want to be clear in your argument. You really the framers really meant for guns to be as ubiquitous a part of our society as they are today? You really believe *this* was the vision of the founders? That’s fucking depressing.
1
Yes. That's why they wrote it plainly to not be misconstrued.... Which both yourself and courts try to do. When the courts ruled in your favor (unconstitutional gun regulation) you say it was a sound choice of the court, but when you disagree with the court's ultimate decision you blame "gun lobbyists". Bad argument, bad take, can't take you seriously at all.
1
How entrenched in government were gun lobbyists in the late 30s?
1
Tell me about what you would consider a good gun control argument. Because I have a suspicion that anything short of tacitly agreeing with you would be brushed off as a bad take.
1
It would be interesting to have a statistic of people saved by guns. We only keep track of those killed by guns. On the flip side, more people die from drug overdoses, but we need to legalize them. "It's a human right!"
1
It's not a gun problem it is a people problem. If all guns were banned and then destroyed there would be more bombing, more knifeings. certain types of people just love killing other people
1
[I love when jokes are relevant 16 years later.](https://youtu.be/X6bbXgUNOws?si=0snl3Vd-FS8RywN6&t=16)
1
What don't you get here, the problem is we need more good guys with guns to even things out.
1
Read the subtext under the picture.
1
😆 I obviously didn't see that..
1
It's the criminals,  stupid!
1
Subtext beneath the post
1
Gun Control evidently doesn’t work. Maybe try prying the juveniles in this crime as to how they were convinced in committing this crime? Even that might be a stretch
1
[deleted]
1
Edit to the original post: There is subtext beneath the picture indicating what the ban was for.
1
Given that an estimated 44% of Americans say they live in a household with a gun, and given that estimate is probably low, we can assume that at least half of all people in America have some level of access to at least one firearm. If guns caused the problem, we'd all be dead already. Collective punishment is not only wrong but impossible to carry out and a waste of time, energy, and resources, and would absolutely make things worse.
1
Sounds good! No guns for everyone, INCLUDING the rich and famous! (Politicians as well) That means no armed security guards. No guns for police other since acorns be out hunting!
1
Hahaha. The fucking acorn story is straight out of Reno 911. It’s amazing. I was reading it and just imagined like Donald Glover handcuffed in the back seat as two officers opened fire and he just lays down screaming as the glass explodes all around him. Someone needs to use SORA to create this scene. Lol
1
If the kids were holding guns then the problem would have been solved
1
I'm pretty sure kids holding guns WERE the problem...
1
Yea but if you had kids that HAD guns that could have protected the kids who had the guns who shot the kids who were at the Super Bowl parade for the cheifs then the nfl is scripted
1
I mean, my kids are all over 18 and have their own guns, and worse, they don't even care about the no fun league
1
I got a ban on whitepeopletwitter for pointing out there hasn’t been much news on the Texas church shooter this month. I pointed out how good guys with guns ended it real fast.
1
That's why we need to arm EVERYONE! Immigrants. Minorities. The homeless. The elderly. Even children.
1
He's completely right. Why are the 2 people being charged? We need to put those two guns on trial and lock them up until the end of time! I'm sick of guns committing all these crimes.
1
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
1
Of course the guns are the problem. We can't mention that 13% of the population commits 90% of the violent crime. Or that the guns used were not legally obtained or registered. But yeah, it's the guns. So let's make laws that make it harder to legally own one 🤦‍♂️
1
Part of why we have never been invaded is due to the fact that a large majority of Americans have their own firearms to defend their land. Guns are capable of a lot of damage no matter which model, but we must remember that they are tools. In the hands of a responsible gun owner, most won’t use their firearm unless they ultimately have to. But allowing Psychopaths to purchase any kind of firearm is just asinine. A good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun, sure. But 9/10 times that bad guy was able to gun down someone before our “good guy” could do anything. Our good guy may be a hero and our bad guy dead or in jail, but the innocent bystander didn’t have to die or get shot. Keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people.
1
It's a race issue, not a gun issue
1
Disagree. It is correct to say that minorities commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime. But it is a mistake to say it’s due to their race. You could make a case that it is due to economic factors in minority communities. You could make a better case that it is due to cultural factors in those communities. People are created equal; cultures are not. Also white people are more likely to be “mass shooters”, probably because they are more likely to suffer from mental illness and be prescribed psychotropic medications which have side effects like violent impulses and psychosis.
1
Glad we agree that it's not a gun issue.
1
I did not know guns came with AI and can operate themselves without a human pulling the trigger? Who knew? Enforce the laws on the books and hold the parents accountable for their crotch fruit's behavior like a normal society does.
1
Shit Kyle Rithouse killed people underage with guns he wasn't supposed to have and nothing happened to him lol
1
Well that sure sounds like a “look what she was wearing, she was asking for it” kind of argument…
1
I am not a fan of that dude, but you’re implying they’re similar situations when they aren’t.
1
It's a mental health problem. Not a gun problem. Don't blame the tool blame the person behind the tool
1
I hate that I can’t edit the original post… Look at the subtext below the picture.
1
I wasn't saying that to you, I agree with you it's just wild how many people have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to guns lmao. Also you're not a sensible person if you haven't been banned by reddit for a reasonable comment or post
1
LOL you literally deserve it? The fuck is wrong with your brain, man?
1
Read the subtext below the pic…
1
The subtext is WHY you deserve it you fucking moron.
1
Oh man….. you didn’t cut your dick off did you? It was satire… 😢
1
What a fucking moron you are lmfao
1
It’s gonna be okay man. Phalloplasty surgeries have come a long way. That can probably make you a new one even bigger than the last!
1
It's like the summer Olympics, all the mental gymnastics people do to make up stories about why guns aren't the biggest problem causing rampant gun violence in America. Sadly, the conservative supported terrorist agenda of the NRA dovetailed with Republican's assault on education. When people have no critical thinking skills and don't understand how anything works, they believe the most ridiculous of lies.
1
100%! You cut your dick off to curb rape, right? Just want to make sure we’re all doing our part.
1
That's a great idea!
1
You gotta be the stupidest motherfucker I ever came across.
1
Uh oh… You didn’t do it did you?? It was just satire…. You definitely shouldn’t cut your dick off. It’s not gonna stop rapists. Unless you’re a rapist…
1
I don't have anything TO cut off. Not a man, so definitely not a rapist.
1
Ah well at least that explains your irrational outburst
1
Incel much?
1
“Everyone on the internet who has a different view than me is an incel!” 😂
1
No, you sound misogynist and ignorant, typical Incel🤣
1
Calm down
1
I am calm, brah. Get out of your Mommy's basement, take a shower, and get a life. Or are you only capable of insulting strangers on the internet? And, BTW, your insults are lame and childish, which is why it's so easy to peg you as an Incel. Big man in Mommy's basement, little man in real life🤷🏻‍♀️
1
It’s honestly amazing how wrong you are. Seriously, you should watch your blood pressure. You can’t get worked up like that when you weigh that much.
1
I'm not wrong, brah. You sound 10 years old. I know I'm not wrong. It's sad how many of ya'll think your juvenile insults have power and that your lies are convincing. Now try actually saying something about gun control. Oh, you can't can you?
1
Gun control is an ineffectual farce pushed forward by an increasingly authoritarian government who uses tragedies to promote the idea that people should surrender their responsibility to protect themselves and their families to the State. The gun control advocates completely ignore the mental health crisis in the country. They cry about gun lobby’s who are outspent 100 fold by the pharmaceutical companies who push psychotropic medications onto prepubescent boys because they can’t pay attention in the schools that are geared towards female students and where healthy male activities (ie rough and tumble play) are suppressed. The gun control advocates can never seem to propose a single idea that would actually prevent mass shooting events, and instead propose blanket legislation that would only make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to exercise their right to defense.
1
Oh look, Chat GPT talking points. So much word salad, so little sense. Guns are the problem.
1
Lol. I’m sorry. When you said you didn’t have a dick I assumed you were a girl. Turns out you’re a bot.
1
No, just an intelligent person. I'm sure your word salad made sense to you, though.
1
Agree to disagree. You can’t even respond intelligently to what you think is a ChatGPT response. Which it’s not, btw. Your “intelligent” response was basically, “No! Guns bad!” Clearly and intellectual. Lol. Were you harmed by someone with a firearm? Maybe half your brain was blown out or something?
1
Oh! The little Incel is getting upset. Mental health is not the reason the USA has so many gun deaths, guns are. But people far smarter than you realized that there were numerous uneducated men in America who want to 'own the libs' and are proud that children being murdered in school doesn't bother them. Every country in three world with gun control, has fewer gun deaths. When the Federal Assault Weapon ban expired, assault weapon massacres skyrocketed. BuT mEnTaL hEaLtH
1
Spoken like someone with mental health issues. What happened in the 1960s when this first started happening? What changed? We always had guns. They’ve been around from the beginning. If guns have always been here, but mass shootings have not, then something else brought on the shootings.
1
What about my statements sounds like I have mental health issues? You think facts and logic are signs of mental illness? Did you learn this from QANON? Fox News? AR style weapons did not become readily available until the 1990s. What school mass shootings are you referring to that happened, in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s? Why are children only now going through active shooter drills? Are you a bot? You don't seem to have any grasp of reality.
1
If Qanon isn’t a troll it was a psyop. M16s were used in Vietnam and Armalite was formed in the 1950s. The University of Texas tower shooting and the Rose-Mar college shooting, both in 1966. Because there are more active shooters situations now. If I’m a bot, my code is better than yours.
1
Yeah, so being used in the military is not the same as being readily available to general public. Two isolated incidents, with decades until the next ones, are not prevelany. Your coding actually sucks, you can't identify like things, dint seem to conorehnd time, nor can you relate to reality. Russian bot maybe? Even ChatGPT can directly answer a question. Either way, I'm bored. You're lame. But oranges aren't limes he said, proving that lemons are yellow.
1
….. I guess if you can’t take the heat… get back in the kitchen. 😂
1
Let me know if you need help from a 10 year old virgin with any of the bigger words.
1
You used big words? Where?
1
I got perma banned for posting that crime statistic of black people murdering everyone and white people murder rate compared to other whites in gun grabber countries with the caption, "we don't have a gun problem".  Liberals will worship they sacred cows. 
1
How come we never have a discussion about the 50's-90's where more guns where at schools than any other time in American history and less mass shootings. I don't think there has been a higher proximity of guns near school grounds than during these times. Guns have out numbered civilians for the last 70 years, and in the past children/teachers used to drive to school with a shotgun/deer rifle (or both) hanging visibly in the back window of their trucks. What changed in the last 20 years? The argument where people say that it's because they where shotguns or deer rifles has some ballistic education they need to undergo. I don't think many people understand just how much damage 3inch shells can do in a shotgun, or how much a 30-06/270/308 can penetrate through targets.
1
He can't be this dumb right?
1
Let’s pass more gun laws that we won’t enforce! Pretty much every mass shooter was on an FBI watch list that they didn’t look into.
1
Wonder who shot them. That’s usually only excluded when it gets in the way of “*the message*”.
1
Yeah let’s ban cars too since thousands die every year from cars. Let’s also ban knives for all the stabbings. We have a crisis where we aren’t valuing human life like we used to. People are becoming too absorbed in themselves and lack the ability to think outside themselves. All this over some stupid fucking game. It’s just football, it’s just a game. People place way too much value on dumb shit that doesn’t matter. Who gives a fuck who won.
1
Well, now you’re going to get a longer ban for creating an alt account to get around it. Great work, genius.
1
There is no debate. You will have to take gun rights by force and there is no army on this planet capable of doing that.
1
JFC why is the top chain a massive Republican jerk chain
1
Its not guns , its parades
1
Shot by two other children
1
The problem is we are raising kids with no fear of consequences
1
And yet every country that enacted and enforced strict gun laws has seen a marked reduction in gun related deaths ...funny how that works.
1
Why do Americans bring guns to go fishing? So they can shoot the whole school
1
For every 100,000 responsible gun owners, 1 person will commit a crime with a firearm. It seems strangely specific to be outraged about such a microscopic minority.
1
Probably should just make murder illegal
1
Well her comment at least made more sense than the idiot politician that said a 12 gauge shotgun is easier to control then an AR-15 and you'll definitely shoot your family members if you use an AR to defend your home. He absolute dumbest people in the world are the ones trying to make gun laws. And it's not because they care.
1
Nice.
1
Ahhh yess the classic hoax politicians love to use that we have a “gun problem”… no. Not even close. We have a society problem. Where traditional values are forgotten and no longer respected. Men become women. Gay marriage is allowed. Single parenthood is encouraged and endorsed by our courts. Jews and arabs are allowed to flood our borders destroying the Christian faith. Mega corporations and the government are destroying out world and everyone is sitting around watching it happen. Most western people don’t even know how to start a fire nowadays if you gave them perfect weather, flint, steel, and the most perfectly dry pile kindling ever bound. This world gets fixed by rejecting degeneracy and embracing traditional values.
1
because those guns woke up that morning with mental and societal issues, got into an argument and just started going of in a crowd. TOTALY the problem is the inanimate object.
1
Lol
-2
We have "collectively realized" it, dozens of times over the last several decades. Then we have the same dumb debates we always have, with the same dumb talking points. The problem isn't that we're continuously failing to realize we have a gun problem, it's that we don't want to commit to doing anything about it. Evoking "children" isn't going to do anything, as children get gunned down in the USA all the time.