To all of you out there who want no gun control. This blood is on your hands. Screw you and your 2nd amendment "rights."
Edit: 18 dead, 13 wounded
Still waiting for the good guy with a gun they keep repeating
EDIT: OK everyone, yes he was the good guy with a gun. Thanks to everyone for pointing this out
Apparently, the shooter was a firearms instructor. Aka, good guy with a gun turned bad guy with a gun.
This crap will never end until the tools they use to kill are off the streets.
Apparently, the shooter was a firearms instructor.
Every gun owner thinks they're a responsible gun owner.
Not my shocked face!!
...Support for Trump, among other politicians. As shown by the video, Card liked tweets from high-profile conservative figures such as Donald Trump Jnr., Tucker Carlson, Dinesh D'Souza. He also engaged with publications from former house speakers Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan, as per the video.
Probably a "Look down the barrel to make sure there is no bullet in there" type.
I think that's the same error in judgement that leads the vast majority of motorists to believe their driving skills are above average. Forgot what it's called.
Which is the key problem. Everyone is a "responsible gun owner" and "good guy with a gun"...... until sometimes they suddenly aren't anymore. At which point your protection is what was person able to keep under normal circumstances aka what they had in their possession on the moment they had a mental snap.
Was it a semi-auto shoot as fast as your finger pulls rifle with potentially hundreds of rounds in quick swap magazines or do they have a manual action hunting rifle or shotgun with fixed magazine, that need to be manually reloaded.
Do they have a pistol with again potentially hundreds of rounds of quick reload ammunition or don't or maybe a target pistol with fixed magazine.
That is why places around the world have magazine and type restrictions, since they exactly know "checking backgrounds isn't fool proof and now amount of background checking helps again sudden newly emerging situation after the checks have been done".
Sure that 5 round moose hunting rifle will absolutely wreck say those 5 people, but one can't exactly run amock shooting around endlessly with moose rifle. Damage limitation. 5 dead people is better situation, than 22 dead people. As cold calculating as that is.
Everyone is a “responsible gun owner” and “good guy with a gun”… until sometimes they suddenly aren’t anymore.
Yeah, and unpopular opinion likely but I think of this similarly to dogs turning on their owners.
And similarly I'd rather have a Yorkshire terrier go crazy on me than a Pitbull.
cough cough Uvalde cough
didn't come because his mother aborted him /s
Yesterday the right said this WAS a good guy. Just let that sink in.
This guy is exactly the kind of person that the GOP considers a "good guy with a gun". He is a mentally ill veteran firearms instructor. Sounds like a boilerplate Trump supporter. Exactly who they want to have more guns.
It's even worse, GOP would want this guy to be an elementary school teacher as a "solution" to the school shootings. Broken, selfish, heartless cowards
Army vet and gun instructor... This was the good guy
There was a study published from data from the last like.. 10 years, I believe, that show that people with guns are more likely to run away, and people WITHOUT guns, are more likely to jump in and try to stop the shooter.
So ya. These good guys with guns are just pussies that never actually use them for good.
Well yeah if they weren't such gigantic cowards they wouldn't buy guns.
Ya. I live in Canada, and I've never felt the need to own a gun. We have a TON of hunting guns here, but I think the fact we don't allow open carry, changes the thought process of gun owners here, and we don't see them as weapons to point at other people. They are more so seen as a tool for a hobby, like a fishing rod is used for fishing.
And honestly, if you avoid Toronto, violence in general is really low. Toronto is just.. special.
And honestly, if you avoid Toronto, violence in general is really low. Toronto is just… special.
Toronto isn't even in the top ten most dangerous...
That might be because people who own guns have had training in how not to get killed.
I'm not sure that saying gun owners should be quicker to shoot people is the right direction.
The real question is, of those ≈35 cases where an armed civilian stopped a shooter, how many did the cops then shoot the "good guy with a gun?" I know it's happened, and I think at least twice.
Mass shootings themselves are a rounding number, rounding numbers are what we're discussing. Also helps that they almost always choose gun free zones "for no reason" instead of "gun guaranteed zones." Almost like they don't want armed people shooting at them.
And one or two, but just because the cops make an error, doesn't mean the person was wrong to save all those people. That's also why you're told to put the gun away once you've secured the situation, and you're supposed to give a visual description of the shooter when you call it in. You really think it's better to just let people cause whatever harm they want to than for them to stop the violent attacker? Even if it's just a guy with a knife who can "only kill less people than a guy with a gun," "if it even stops just one" right?
Maybe be the change you want to see in the world instead of bitching, then.
edit: go ahead and keep downvoting me, when the right does finally manage a coup they'll be the only ones with any guns you stupid motherfuckers. For now, the 2nd amendment is your right -- you want to forgo it until they take it away from you (and only you), be my guest.
You alright buddy?
If you check the other thread here, he's clearly not.
He's clearly a troll. Don't feed the trolls, people.
His new flare also says he's banned from the community, so ... mission accomplished?
His profile did say the mods hate him haha. Good riddance.
I'm pro-gun but anti-2A precisely because of fuckers like you who insist we can't do anything about this stuff because 2A so we just have to live with mass shootings.
Nope if 2A is standing in the way of sensible regulation, then get rid of it. Then I'll fight for reasonable laws around gun ownership. 2A is the problem.
Bingo, license (no test just who you are where you live like a DL) register (every firearm) and own a fucking tank of you want, I don't care. The biggest issue is you can pretty easily get ahold of one without anyone knowing you have one so the thought someone could get away is much more pervasive.
Not from the US but isn't it like that US Citizens do not have to register their current place of living? If true I think they could get a grip of the gun madness by fixing that problem.
They could couple permission for buying guns and ammo to have the buyer have a registered residency and showing their ID which would be checked against a federal database which logs the amount of guns and ammo bought.
If a buyer is reaching some tresholds they'd have to ask for a permit and give some convincing reasons why they need them. Especially when they want to buy AR's or other heavy weaponry.
When set in effect, every US citizen has to register their current weapons. After a grace period, owning unregistered weapons and getting caught will get the buyer a ban for owning weapons and having to re-apply for permissions after some time. Getting caught multilple times is a perma ban.
Every US citizen should have the right to buy guns and ammo to protect themselves even if they don't have a permanent residency. Those could be allowed to buy a handgun, also logged in the federal DB with their ID or SSN.
Everyone who wants a permit to buy guns needs to complete a training from a state agency.
That long-ass plan for a better world would see the first major roadblock with the refusal to register their residency by at least 50% of the US-population, right? And it could also be that many left leaning, dems or libertarians would give that idea a hard pass.
So yeah...probably every part of this plan collides with the US idea of individual freedom. Take a look at Switzerland maybe.
Basically yes.
That's the idea. Not on ammo though, reloading is better for the environment so let's not impede that.
No. That's a search, you can't do that in the United States.
That's the idea.
That's the idea.
Nope. You have to offer incentives to businesses so they want to make people do it or they won't sell it, then it's a business meeting a business decision not the government imposing it's will. I mean it still is but most people over here are not huge on critical thinking.
Probably, so you incentiveize it. Again then it's people sneaking a couple dollars from the government, not the government imposing it's will.
Not really, people are just dumb and there's a lot of money involved in keeping it controversial. You can literally watch profits of the big ammo manufacturers rise and fall every 4 -8 years they're not going to let that go easily.
Sensible regulations would be rubber bullets for newly minted firearms owners. Keep it empty, but if the day comes that you think about going on a mass shooting spree, you'll probably change your mind when you remember that you'll be loading rubber bullets and have to explain yourself after you've shot someone.
when the right does finally manage a coup they’ll be the only ones with any guns you stupid motherfuckers
"The weapon believed to have been used in the attack was a sniper rifle with .308 caliber bullets, and it was purchased legally this year, officials said."
"Maine court records show that a man named Robert Card who was born on the same date as the person of interest was charged with speeding in 2001 and 2002. No other criminal records were listed in the state's electronic court records system or in several other public records databases."
But also:
"It added that law enforcement said Card 'recently reported mental health issues to include hearing voices and threats to shoot up the National Guard Base in Saco, ME.'
The bulletin said Card was reported to have been committed to a mental health facility for two weeks this summer and then released. NBC News has not been able to independently verify the bulletin's statements about Card's history."
In previous incidents, people committed to mental health facilities didn't have it turn up on their background check unless it was ordered by a judge. That needs to change.
I'm seeing varying reports that he was also convicted of domestic abuse, but this link shows no such charges.
Anyone hearing voices needs to have their guns immediately seized.
That would violate the 1st amendment right to religion.
As the late great Christopher Hitchens once said (paraphrasing here):
When god hears you that's prayer. When you hear god that's mental illness.
This is a common misconception.
If you talk to the imaginary being in the sky that is sane and you should be able to buy a tank or a machine gun.
If the imaginary being in the sky talks to you, you are a crazy person and should be limited to 6 rifles or less.
Heyoooo.
Good
Yeah, but since no further help will be forthcoming, who will admit to it?
But my dog told me it was OK for me to keep a rifle.
Well if the dog says so how can we disagree?
Give him a treat and some pats for me.
Agreed, including all the Evangelical preachers claiming "God spoke to me..."
Not very many people have argued that people who have actually made violent threats and been institutionalized should be buying guns.
This guy was a firearms instructor. Literally a good guy with a gun turned into a bad guy with a gun.
The key point is that he was also recently institutionalized after making threats and SHOULD have had his guns seized, even under existing law.
Agreed, but we haven't been enforcing red flag laws consistently since people start bitching about "mah rites" whenever you try to disarm someone threatening to kill their ex-GF.
The referenced law isn't "red flag laws," those are something else in which simply reporting "my roomate or ex said bad things, proof? No why would I need that, take the guns first due process second, you heard Trump!"
Problem is, people do have rights, and as such before you can violate them you have to actually have a reason, like "them being involuntarily commited for hearing vioces and expressing homicidal ideation."
Red flag laws are written in such a way that your roomate can call them on you because he's mad you ate the last Oreo™, so the cops come and take your right to own guns after a secret hearing you weren't invited to, but it's ok because you will have the almost impossible opportunity to prove "nuh uh" in court 1 year after the date of arbitrary confiscation, unfortunately by then the cops may have already "destroyed" (read: stolen) the property they're now supposed to return so even if you do win that case: Oh well, no punishment for the cops, they can shoot innocent people with impunity, you think they'll get talked to for theft?
Of course that gets pushback, just like any other bad idea Trump supported (albeit from a different group in this case). Most people are however fine with the law we already have that could have prevented this, problem is people need to do their goddamn job and should have taken his shit/input his commital to NICs.
Can you find any precedent of someone getting red-flagged for something as simple as taking the last Oreo? From what I understand, there is a burden of proof on red-flag laws, it usually takes a judge to issue the order to confiscate. Cops are not given unilateral power to disarm someone without any procedure.
I like how you say this...
Problem is, people do have rights, and as such before you can violate them you have to actually have a reason...
...And then immediately say this...
like “them being involuntarily commited for hearing vioces and expressing homicidal ideation.”
Literally, involuntary committing someone is a violation of their rights, but it is an violation that is well established by law. Just like say...taking away someone's guns for a period of time while they are openly threatening people and displaying extreme anti-social behavior
At the moment, they are only a thing in a few states and I'm not sure how often they're used even there. In some states like Florida it does require some proof, but in my state, while the proposed law got close but was not passed, in addition to everything I said above the complaintant was protected from being charged with perjory in the event it was found out they lied in the inital case.
Of course, the complaintant never could have told the judge "he took the last oreo," if that is what you mean, they would be required to lie, but tbh a secret hearing you're not invited to is easy for them to lie at so long as the burden of proof is as low as "he said..."
but it is an violation that is well established by law.
And reasonable. Broadening that to allow anyone who knows you to go to a judge in a secret hearing and say "he bad" with no other proof and bam 1yr without the right to self defense if you ever get it back all because he said she said is "unreasonable." It is also not well established by law considering all the laws are pretty new and all different in every state that has implimented them VS federal law that is reported (well supposed to be, they need to do their job) into NICs since like '96, and also requires a more "standard" burden of proof.
I mean be real, if the red flag laws didn't have a lower burden of proof than involuntary commitment, what would be the point of them existing? We already have IVCs, which have the added bonus of at least some caliber of mental health professional, if the burden of proof is the same the only difference is instead of attempting to actually get the person help all you do is temporarily take their guns
..until they buy more (legally or otherwise), make one, or stab someone, the danger is still there and hasn't been helped at all, with the IVC they show up in the national database instead of the just California database, with the red flag laws the cops show up and leave you alone with the angry, if disarmed, person, with IVCs they are forced into a facility, allowing someone time to escape, or time for the person to cool off with the ativan and doctors. I mean, the only reason for them is "I'm right." The question is "is that good or bad."
I'm firmly on the side of "it's bad, innocent until proven guilty is good."
openly threatening people and displaying extreme anti-social behavior
You mean things that can get you IVC'd? So IVC, red flag laws are often built for abuse, you don't need them unless you intend to abuse it, and if they're not built to abuse they are functionally the same as an IVC just "less good anyway."
People don't get their guns taken away after literally threatening to kill people and getting institutionalized and you are worried about it happening over Oreos? How about we START with the self-identified violent maniacs and then worry about the oreo scenario?
Well, if it is really about enforcing the existing laws to you, then the current laws should be fine even though you agree with me they should be enforced. How about START with the current laws and then worry about the red flag laws?
Most of these laws, and most of the historic gun control in the US, is really intended to be used to keep guns from the "wrong sort" of people, and that means leftists and brown people generally. Crazy white guys were never the target of any prior firearms legislation or enforcement mechanism. That's really the core of the problem here.
What was his ratemyprofessor rating?
Gallows humor really does hit different when your 2 hours into doom scrolling lol
You mean reddit humor?
Gallows humor existed long before Reddit came along. It will be here long after Reddit is forgotten.
Yeah, I just meant it was a lame joke befitting of reddit comedians and their fans.
True, but continuing to vote for representatives who refuse to have any conversation about gun control still makes them complicit in this behavior.
Someone once told me, be careful of your thoughts for your thoughts may affect your words, be careful of your words because your words may come to become your actions, be careful of your actions for your actions may reflect on your character.
If you ask me, owning a firearm and making violent threats don't necessarily mean actions, but I agree that there's a definitive correlation. I guess that I still believe that the action itself is the most honest and serious commitment to something a person can express.
I think the fundamental issues with guns is that they SUBSTANTIALLY shorten the time and effort to put thoughts into action. Thinking "man, i want to kill everyone here." is a pretty abstract thought, until you actually have the means to kill everyone there right at hand.
Jupp. And it's so effortless. Try to pull that shit with a knife.
And Republicans will still refuse to do any sort of enforcement law.
It doesn’t matter. Not what you say or how many people get slaughtered because of their powertripping fantasies.
The last time I argued with these folks, it was on r/Europe I think. Besides the rabid antics their arguments were…interesting? My favourite was „Imagine needing another man to protect your home“. Some time later one of them, a young English man, even became famous. By killing his mother and a couple of others. And of course it was a super incel with a multitude of mental health issues.
The point I’m trying to make is, they don’t care. Or at the very least they are deluded to a point that they don’t see what damage it does.
There are so many guns in the US right now that it's ridiculous. Gun control here would be great... If it were done a hundred years ago. I'm not saying I'm against common sense laws, but like... Pandoras box is open here.
There are 120 firearms for every 100 civilians that live in the U.S. We have 46% of the total worldwide statistic for civilian ownership. The US makes up only a meager 331.9 million out of 7.89 billion people worldwide. That means 4.2% of the world owns 46% of the guns... And those people are all American.
On top of this, some of the most heinous shootings in US history were performed with illegally obtained weapons. Columbine is one of the examples most will recognize.
I'm not leading up to anything here, I just wanted to educate everyone on how fucked we are.
I'm not leading up to anything here, I just wanted to educate everyone on how fucked we are.
Definitely, but your argument is unfortunately what keeps us from ever doing anything about it. Thinking that it can't be done is just not good enough.
Age limits and rubber bullets for veterans would probably help
America has too many guns to ever have gun control. Move to Canada if you want that peace of mind.
People have vices, violence is a vice too
I don't know anyone who picks up a six pack of violence on their way home from work. Just kidding lmao I know what you mean.
I am against gun control laws and this blood is not on my hands.
You may be blind to it, but it's there.
Your past failure to learn from these continued atrocities is your complicity. Your current preference to protect the tools of violence over lives is your complicity. Your future vote to keep the status quo even as history repeats itself is your complicity.
On the contrary. I believe the tools of violence are the only things that will allow us to protect lives.
Gun control has historically been used as a tool to oppress further those who resist oppression. You can see it today, every murder by the police is defended with "they reached for my gun" or "they had a gun". The gun control laws you want will be enforced by the police and they will be enforced selectively against minorities. The atrocities you reference are almost universally committed by right wing straight white men. I can assure you no gun control will stop them from acquiring firearms.
There is an explicit example of this in Israel today. The settlers are allowed and encouraged to possess firearms while the Palestinians are explicitly disallowed.
It's ahistoric to say that gun control will save lives. This country only implemented gun control when indigenous and black people began carrying firearms in self defense. Many black men concealed carried pistols to defend against lynchings which is how we have concealed carry restrictions. Because it became illegal to conceal carry, the lynchings continued. Atrocities continue.
This has gotta be the most informed comment in the entire thread.
While I appreciate your effort to sound informed, you're wrong.
The US is the only developed country in the world with a serious gun violence issue and it's also the only developed country where firearms are flooding the streets.
The US is not more mentally ill than other developed countries. The difference is access to weapons. You can choose to live in denial about that, because you prioritize your weapons over lives, but, like I said, that makes you complicit.
I don't think you read my comment. I didn't mention mental illness. And I explained how access to firearms will not be restricted to those who commit the violence.
I would prefer to live in a country with no guns but that is not the reality we live in. And it will not be the reality no matter how many laws get pressed. They will be selectively enforced by a fascist police force.
In Colorado, there is a magazine capacity limit of 15 rounds. The police choose not to enforce this. You can walk into any gun store and buy a drum magazine holding 150 rounds. In a metropolitan area with probably the most horrific mass shootings. The only time it will ever be a crime is when the police murder a brown person with a magazine holding more than 15 rounds.
I understand you want to live in a safe community and don't want to read news about mass shooters every week. I think you should accept this and act accordingly, don't bring a knife to a gun fight. The people who hold power do not care and laws they would implement would not stop the violence and would disenfranchise vulnerable communities.
I appreciate your honesty and perspective from where you sit. But this is also exactly why things never change and we experienced massacre after massacre. That "it can't be done" attitude. It can be done if you vote for people who want to do something about this. The reality is that, in general, Republicans don't want anything to change, so they will never get my vote. Whenever I can, I vote for candidates who want to press a full repeal of the 2nd amendment. No guns = no gun violence.
If there were to be an actual ban on firearms that starts with the police, I would support it.
Yup, you're right, because millions of people have owned guns legally for hundreds of years, it's their fault and blood is on their hands for this mass shooting.
Your past failure to learn from these continued atrocities is your complicity. Your current preference to protect the tools of violence over lives is your complicity. Your future vote to keep the status quo even as history repeats itself is your complicity.
Yup my failure to learn is my complicity, it's all my fault. You sure know a lot about me. I'm going to need a few to come up with a better reply though, I've been coughing up straw all day.
Guns three hundred years ago were only slightly more dangerous than a guy with a rock and a mean your mama so fat joke. It isn't hundreds of years it's like 150 years.
I'd rather be shot with a modern hollow point today with modern medicine than shot with ball ammo and get the medical care from 300 years ago, but that's just me.
Literally not even remotely relevant to what the conversation was but go off.
I'd also rather get hit with a semi truck today with modern medicine than get run over by a horse and carriage in 1840.
But I don't see what that has to do with the fact that a semi truck traveling at max speed can level a small building vs a carriage just kinda flattening it's own horses on impact.
I don't see what any of this has to do with anything honestly. But go off.
Yes it is literally just you. You are the only person on earth gaming out situations where you have a choice between getting shot 300 years ago or shot today.
I'm feeling warm and tingly inside
You dropped this chief /s
10 million were tortured and shoved into ovens and gas chambers in Germany. That blood is on the hands of gun control supporters.
86 people were murdered and 434 injured with a rental truck in Nice, France. More than any other mass shooting in history. The tools are not the problem. Indiscriminate murder is incredibly easy and will remain so regardless of what laws you pass. The only thing you take away is the ability for individuals to defend themselves.
Guns have been an American pastime for as long as America has been around and yet only in the last ~30 years did we begin to see a rise in crimes of this type.
This guy was former military and it sounds like he was hallucinating. Better mental healthcare could have prevented this tragedy. Along with I'm sure a myriad of other, more difficult solutions.
A truck is not designed specifically to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible. Most firearms are. This type of firearm certainly is.
You can't sit in a hotel room in Las Vegas, hundreds of yards from a crowd, and kill 60 people and wound more than 400 with a truck or a knife. Very different tools.
And I really don't care about your gun "pastime" or "rights." I care about getting my kids safely home from school and how having 5-year-olds do active shooter drills. Insanity.
You can't sit in a hotel room in Las Vegas, hundreds of yards from a crowd, and kill 60 people and wound more than 400 with a truck
Car bomb detonated by remote control, IRA style
A truck is not designed specifically to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible. Most firearms are. This type of firearm certainly is.
And yet it does the job all the same. That's the whole point.
And I really don't care about your gun "pastime" or "rights."
I'm sure it was intentional but you missed the point.
Did you even read my comment? Try throwing that truck from a hotel room in Vegas and see how many people it kills. It does not do the same job and it's not designed to do the same job.
I don't agree with Helen, but their point stands. The truck did complete the intended action of executing the 84 people all the same. That being said, there are more stop gaps for a reckless driver (bollards are everywhere in the US). Stopping someone with a loaded trigger is a lot harder. I think the France situation was exceptional and not a standard road rage incident/attack. What would need to happen to have a fair assessment is compare the per capita fatality from road rage incidents to armed attacks.
It happened in Berlin at the Breitscheidplatz in 2016 on a christmas fair too where 12 people were murdered by an islamist with a truck. Since these events I feel I've seen a lot more concrete roadblocks capable to stop trucks here in populated areas in european cities.
LOL your comment is completely ridiculous. You obviously don't need to throw it from a hotel room, you can simply drive it down a road full of people.
I have literally no idea what your point is.
A couple points.
One: No armed militia is going to stop the US 7bn dollar military apparatus on home territory. Don't bring up Vietnam. Don't bring up Afghanistan. If you think gravy seals navy is anything compared to the Viet Cong you are deluded.
Two: using the France terrorist road vehicle attack as a counter is disingenuous use of stats/numbers. You can't compare a singular attack to the average gun based attacks in the US. What you would do -if you really cared to compare them- is take the average per capita road rage incident or vehicle based murders and compare them to the gun related mass shootings / deaths. You can control for many factors too (time frames, region, age, etc). Something about guns being readily available makes them more likely to be used. We have millions of people driving and only so many intentional terrorist attacks using vehicles.
One: No armed militia is going to stop the US 7bn dollar military apparatus on home territory.
It's a tired argument I'm not interested in taking up again, but the answer is yes, they can. The military didn't drop bombs on Waco.
You can't compare a singular attack to the average gun based attacks in the US.
I didn't. I compared it to every mass shooting in the history of the country. The moral of the story (since you missed it) is that you can ban guns and it won't stop people from just using something else when they want to hurt large groups of random people.
Something about guns being readily available makes them more likely to be used.
Which is precisely why "gun deaths" and "gun violence" is a terrible metric. Even if you could theoretically take them all away, they'd just use something else (like a rental truck). Notice a theme here?
Yes. The theme is your inability to understand stats. If cars, which are more readily available than guns are able to cause more damage every shooter would go for that but reality is guns are easier. Sure, if they're determined they will find a way, but people tend to go for the easiest path. Deterrents tend to slow the process as studies have shown. That's why looking at stats is so useful for understanding circumstances and deterrents. That's if you really wanted to have an unbiased honest conversation.
Waco is not serving your argument. Firstly, the military was not involved. Second, we're talking 4 ATF agents lost compared to 76 adults. Soooo....I don't see the relevance. The Xbox gravy seals is not going to live up to it's expectations. Shit, is proud boys the best example of the 2a crowd because they look like they can't run a mile either (that's must my opinion though, maybe the photos are deceiving).
I believe the point they are making is that "sure guns are the easiest path until you ban guns, then something else (seemingly cars is suggested) would become the easiest path and therefore would be 'switched to' by those wishing to cause violence, as their violent ideation was not dealt with merely the tool was, so now the tool has changed."
I.e, most people hammer in nails with a hammer becuse it's the easiest path, but if you ban hammers and I need this nail in this wood, I guess I'll use the back of my wrench. Sure, it isn't as good but it'll work just fine. I wouldn't say "oh well nothing can be built, guess I won't build shit," if I'm significantly determined to get that nail in I'll do everything in my power to do so including using tools not exactly meant for the job but that'll work.
One could make the argument that "at least it takes me longer to build the thing," or "you'll be able to build less things," but that is only true assuming I downgrade to a wrench. I could make my own hammer easily, or I could upgrade to a nail gun (in this analogy I guess that'd be a pressure cooker and some nails Boston Marathon style.)
They do not seem to be saying "cars are more effective than guns," imo, though it seems to be taken that way by (possibly you and) others in this thread.
The research shows that deterrents work. The more there are in place, the less likely the acts are going to be committed. That's why gun owners have such a high success rate with suicide. It's much easier. You can all keep insisting that the attackers will switch to the next best thing but if that was the case, every other country in the world would have an equal amount of murder sprees, just committed by cars instead? Reality shows that mass killings in developed countries happen predominantly in the US. Why is that?
Japan has very few firearms however still has a high suicide rate
True. That's why we shouldn't compare US suicidality to cultures that are quite different and use similar cultures for control when evaluating stats. For instance, I wouldn't look at the success rates of building a Starbucks in Mogadishu to long island. They are too different.
I like your thinking
Sure, suicide is easier with guns, but Japan demonstrates quite well that they are hardly a prerequisite. Guns are banned in Japan and so, to the other commenter's point, they find another way to achieve their goals. Guns aren't even statistically the most effective, drinking on train tracks is (or doing fentanyl on the train tracks, hit ya with the 2x.)
You can all keep insisting that the attackers will switch to the next best thing but if that was the case, every other country in the world would have an equal amount of murder sprees, just committed by cars instead?
Sure if you don't account for any other differences between countries like mental health or other social services, or culture, or anything. Unfortunately in reality it is rarely that black and white, there are other differences.
Suicide is definitely faster with guns. I wouldn't call it easier. You can take yourself out quietly, cleanly and peacefully with stuff you can buy over the counter at any pharmacy on the planet.
No, before you ask, I won't post specifics here on how to do it. If you are considering ending your life, please get help. If you are in a country that allows for medical euthanasia, please work with them rather than take your life on your own.
The studies I refer to use local groups for control and not other nations. It is worthwhile looking up the studies.
Absolutely there is more nuance, I was responding to the person that brought up the Paris truck attack. All things combined, the deterrents are what seem to have the most effect.
Sure, but deterrents also have to be effective. Simply banning assault rifles for instance will just transfer it to the already-more-often-used handguns. Background checks are already a thing, unfortunately the Gov won't give gun owners access to NICs for private sales (though they've been begging for decades, and that would help), but the people who pull these shootings are always some shit like this where they should have kept him IVC'd (which federally, legally, disqualifies him from firearms ownership and he should have had them confiscated and the IVC reported to NICs, already all laws people just didn't do their job), or steal the guns from someone, or just are able to squeak through with a clean background. And some things like mental health checks are already a thing with the IVC but tbh I think things like "no guns for people with PTSD" sounds pretty fucked up even if that would help, people with PTSD have rights too.
I agree. I firmly believe something like universal background checks and closing the private sales loophole would be a step in the right direction. Again, these aren't intended to be perfect solutions, they are just meant to slow it down. We can't let perfect be the enemy of progress.
if that was the case, every other country in the world would have an equal amount of murder sprees
Yes, because every other country is otherwise identical...
Reality shows that mass killings in developed countries happen predominantly in the US.
No. It doesn't.
However, I can think of a certain group of unarmed people right now being murdered by the hundreds/day by an invading force.
That's cute. Hamas is armed to the teeth and well organized. How's it going for them? It's not even the US military but the IDF. I'd really like to see Derrick put down his Xbox controller and get to it.
Agreed
The theme is your inability to understand stats.
...what stats? You mean stats of the most successful mass murders? I think that belongs to trucks and planes.
If cars, which are more readily available than guns are able to cause more damage every shooter would go for that but reality is guns are easier.
Guns are just what they see on TV. Lots of people use cars, bombs or whatever else. In the case of France they didn't have guns, but it obviously didn't stop them.
Waco is not serving your argument. Firstly, the military was not involved.
Uuuuhhh but that WAS my argument...
Second, we're talking 4 ATF agents lost compared to 76 adults
It doesn't matter. No one is keeping score. The point is they stood up for themselves and gave the ATF a fuckin' helluva time. Wanna take a poll on how many armed citizens there are vs. ATF agents? Or even the entirety of the US military?
Yea the military was never involved. So it has nothing to do with my initial point. Buck and Chuck are not taking down the US army. I don't know why we got sidetracked with it.
You're the one who brought it up?
The point is the military won't be dropping bombs on its own people.
WACO negotiations took 53 days, but MOVE was given a day to leave before two bombs were dropped in the middle of rowhouses in Philadelphia 😂 arming yourself to discourage the government works way better when the government is already favorable to your cause.
False. Spain 1936.
The phone is ringing, it's for you. Sounds like some miners in West Virginia from 1921 would like to talk to you.
Whoa, you got a time traveling phone!?
Nah, you're just living that far in the past.
Wait so IM a time traveler!? And I didn't even know it! 🤯🤯🤯
You're not a time traveler, you just have the mental acuity of a fossil.
Frtuermore, gun control supporters of today are not the same as NAZI gun control supporters - who disarmed Jews.
This misinformation disappoints me, but the nature of your comment is overwhelmingly correct.
The tools are not the problem. Indiscriminate murder is incredibly easy and will remain so regardless of what laws you pass.
Horrifying words that ring true. Gun control is in my opinion moot for many reasons. This guy deserved more healthcare.
Your arguments about vans are OK but your fascist talking points tell me you're not worth listening to.
The "nazi gun control supported the holocaust" argument has been debunked
No, it hasn't. Several people have provided their opinions on the matter. Certainly biased opinions. It can't be "debunked" with anything less than a time machine and a militia the size that would make the NRA blush.
Frtuermore, gun control supporters of today are not the same as NAZI gun control supporters - who disarmed Jews.
Doesn't matter if they're the same or not. Only thing that matters is whether the people are disarmed. Regimes change.
The fucking 1% of Germans who were jewish, who were forcefully disarmed were not going to avoid getting genocided by remaining armed or trying to purchase more arms.
Yes. They would. And they killed more than the jews, you know? About 40% we're non-Jewish.
"... It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population." - Alan E. Steinweis, NYT Source
Your arguments so far are that people saying this are obviously biased. If we assume those persecuted could have gained firearms, armed themselves and formed a highly organized militia - all while facing road blocks at each and every turn - do you really think this militia could have kept a genocide from occurring?
At least 22 dead and 60 wounded.
To all of you out there who want no gun control. This blood is on your hands. Screw you and your 2nd amendment "rights."
Edit: 18 dead, 13 wounded
Still waiting for the good guy with a gun they keep repeating
EDIT: OK everyone, yes he was the good guy with a gun. Thanks to everyone for pointing this out
Apparently, the shooter was a firearms instructor. Aka, good guy with a gun turned bad guy with a gun.
This crap will never end until the tools they use to kill are off the streets.
Every gun owner thinks they're a responsible gun owner.
Not my shocked face!!
...Support for Trump, among other politicians. As shown by the video, Card liked tweets from high-profile conservative figures such as Donald Trump Jnr., Tucker Carlson, Dinesh D'Souza. He also engaged with publications from former house speakers Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan, as per the video.
Probably a "Look down the barrel to make sure there is no bullet in there" type.
I think that's the same error in judgement that leads the vast majority of motorists to believe their driving skills are above average. Forgot what it's called.
Which is the key problem. Everyone is a "responsible gun owner" and "good guy with a gun"...... until sometimes they suddenly aren't anymore. At which point your protection is what was person able to keep under normal circumstances aka what they had in their possession on the moment they had a mental snap.
Was it a semi-auto shoot as fast as your finger pulls rifle with potentially hundreds of rounds in quick swap magazines or do they have a manual action hunting rifle or shotgun with fixed magazine, that need to be manually reloaded.
Do they have a pistol with again potentially hundreds of rounds of quick reload ammunition or don't or maybe a target pistol with fixed magazine.
That is why places around the world have magazine and type restrictions, since they exactly know "checking backgrounds isn't fool proof and now amount of background checking helps again sudden newly emerging situation after the checks have been done".
Sure that 5 round moose hunting rifle will absolutely wreck say those 5 people, but one can't exactly run amock shooting around endlessly with moose rifle. Damage limitation. 5 dead people is better situation, than 22 dead people. As cold calculating as that is.
Yeah, and unpopular opinion likely but I think of this similarly to dogs turning on their owners.
And similarly I'd rather have a Yorkshire terrier go crazy on me than a Pitbull.
cough cough Uvalde cough
didn't come because his mother aborted him /s
Yesterday the right said this WAS a good guy. Just let that sink in.
This guy is exactly the kind of person that the GOP considers a "good guy with a gun". He is a mentally ill veteran firearms instructor. Sounds like a boilerplate Trump supporter. Exactly who they want to have more guns.
It's even worse, GOP would want this guy to be an elementary school teacher as a "solution" to the school shootings. Broken, selfish, heartless cowards
Army vet and gun instructor... This was the good guy
There was a study published from data from the last like.. 10 years, I believe, that show that people with guns are more likely to run away, and people WITHOUT guns, are more likely to jump in and try to stop the shooter.
So ya. These good guys with guns are just pussies that never actually use them for good.
Well yeah if they weren't such gigantic cowards they wouldn't buy guns.
Ya. I live in Canada, and I've never felt the need to own a gun. We have a TON of hunting guns here, but I think the fact we don't allow open carry, changes the thought process of gun owners here, and we don't see them as weapons to point at other people. They are more so seen as a tool for a hobby, like a fishing rod is used for fishing.
And honestly, if you avoid Toronto, violence in general is really low. Toronto is just.. special.
Toronto isn't even in the top ten most dangerous...
That might be because people who own guns have had training in how not to get killed.
I'm not sure that saying gun owners should be quicker to shoot people is the right direction.
https://crimeresearch.org/2023/08/cases-where-armed-citizens-have-stopped-active-shooter-incidents/
The real question is, of those ≈35 cases where an armed civilian stopped a shooter, how many did the cops then shoot the "good guy with a gun?" I know it's happened, and I think at least twice.
Also 35/thousands is a rounding error.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
Mass shootings themselves are a rounding number, rounding numbers are what we're discussing. Also helps that they almost always choose gun free zones "for no reason" instead of "gun guaranteed zones." Almost like they don't want armed people shooting at them.
And one or two, but just because the cops make an error, doesn't mean the person was wrong to save all those people. That's also why you're told to put the gun away once you've secured the situation, and you're supposed to give a visual description of the shooter when you call it in. You really think it's better to just let people cause whatever harm they want to than for them to stop the violent attacker? Even if it's just a guy with a knife who can "only kill less people than a guy with a gun," "if it even stops just one" right?
Maybe be the change you want to see in the world instead of bitching, then.
edit: go ahead and keep downvoting me, when the right does finally manage a coup they'll be the only ones with any guns you stupid motherfuckers. For now, the 2nd amendment is your right -- you want to forgo it until they take it away from you (and only you), be my guest.
You alright buddy?
If you check the other thread here, he's clearly not.
He's clearly a troll. Don't feed the trolls, people.
His new flare also says he's banned from the community, so ... mission accomplished?
His profile did say the mods hate him haha. Good riddance.
I'm pro-gun but anti-2A precisely because of fuckers like you who insist we can't do anything about this stuff because 2A so we just have to live with mass shootings.
Nope if 2A is standing in the way of sensible regulation, then get rid of it. Then I'll fight for reasonable laws around gun ownership. 2A is the problem.
Bingo, license (no test just who you are where you live like a DL) register (every firearm) and own a fucking tank of you want, I don't care. The biggest issue is you can pretty easily get ahold of one without anyone knowing you have one so the thought someone could get away is much more pervasive.
Not from the US but isn't it like that US Citizens do not have to register their current place of living? If true I think they could get a grip of the gun madness by fixing that problem.
They could couple permission for buying guns and ammo to have the buyer have a registered residency and showing their ID which would be checked against a federal database which logs the amount of guns and ammo bought.
If a buyer is reaching some tresholds they'd have to ask for a permit and give some convincing reasons why they need them. Especially when they want to buy AR's or other heavy weaponry.
When set in effect, every US citizen has to register their current weapons. After a grace period, owning unregistered weapons and getting caught will get the buyer a ban for owning weapons and having to re-apply for permissions after some time. Getting caught multilple times is a perma ban.
Every US citizen should have the right to buy guns and ammo to protect themselves even if they don't have a permanent residency. Those could be allowed to buy a handgun, also logged in the federal DB with their ID or SSN.
Everyone who wants a permit to buy guns needs to complete a training from a state agency.
That long-ass plan for a better world would see the first major roadblock with the refusal to register their residency by at least 50% of the US-population, right? And it could also be that many left leaning, dems or libertarians would give that idea a hard pass.
So yeah...probably every part of this plan collides with the US idea of individual freedom. Take a look at Switzerland maybe.
Basically yes.
That's the idea. Not on ammo though, reloading is better for the environment so let's not impede that.
No. That's a search, you can't do that in the United States.
That's the idea.
That's the idea.
Nope. You have to offer incentives to businesses so they want to make people do it or they won't sell it, then it's a business meeting a business decision not the government imposing it's will. I mean it still is but most people over here are not huge on critical thinking.
Probably, so you incentiveize it. Again then it's people sneaking a couple dollars from the government, not the government imposing it's will.
Not really, people are just dumb and there's a lot of money involved in keeping it controversial. You can literally watch profits of the big ammo manufacturers rise and fall every 4 -8 years they're not going to let that go easily.
Sensible regulations would be rubber bullets for newly minted firearms owners. Keep it empty, but if the day comes that you think about going on a mass shooting spree, you'll probably change your mind when you remember that you'll be loading rubber bullets and have to explain yourself after you've shot someone.
Believe it or not, the US military has many guns.
Who the heck is paying you to preach this crap? They need a better representative.
So... go buy a gun and shoot him myself? No thanks, voting is my weapon of choice and I use it like a machine gun
So you commit fraud by voting many times really fast?
Not funny
Predicting a failure in background checks here allowing him to get a gun:
Edit
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-maine-shooting-suspect-says-mental-health-deteriorated-rapidly-rcna122353
"The weapon believed to have been used in the attack was a sniper rifle with .308 caliber bullets, and it was purchased legally this year, officials said."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lewiston-maine-shooting-robert-card-what-know-rcna122262
"Maine court records show that a man named Robert Card who was born on the same date as the person of interest was charged with speeding in 2001 and 2002. No other criminal records were listed in the state's electronic court records system or in several other public records databases."
But also:
"It added that law enforcement said Card 'recently reported mental health issues to include hearing voices and threats to shoot up the National Guard Base in Saco, ME.'
The bulletin said Card was reported to have been committed to a mental health facility for two weeks this summer and then released. NBC News has not been able to independently verify the bulletin's statements about Card's history."
In previous incidents, people committed to mental health facilities didn't have it turn up on their background check unless it was ordered by a judge. That needs to change.
I'm seeing varying reports that he was also convicted of domestic abuse, but this link shows no such charges.
Anyone hearing voices needs to have their guns immediately seized.
That would violate the 1st amendment right to religion.
As the late great Christopher Hitchens once said (paraphrasing here):
When god hears you that's prayer. When you hear god that's mental illness.
This is a common misconception.
If you talk to the imaginary being in the sky that is sane and you should be able to buy a tank or a machine gun.
If the imaginary being in the sky talks to you, you are a crazy person and should be limited to 6 rifles or less.
Heyoooo.
Good
Yeah, but since no further help will be forthcoming, who will admit to it?
But my dog told me it was OK for me to keep a rifle.
Well if the dog says so how can we disagree? Give him a treat and some pats for me.
Agreed, including all the Evangelical preachers claiming "God spoke to me..."
Not very many people have argued that people who have actually made violent threats and been institutionalized should be buying guns.
The 5th Circuit Court (with at least one judge appointed by Trump) has ruled that removing the guns from a violent domestic abuser violates his rights: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/02/09/guns-domestic-abuse-second-amendment/
This guy was a firearms instructor. Literally a good guy with a gun turned into a bad guy with a gun.
The key point is that he was also recently institutionalized after making threats and SHOULD have had his guns seized, even under existing law.
Agreed, but we haven't been enforcing red flag laws consistently since people start bitching about "mah rites" whenever you try to disarm someone threatening to kill their ex-GF.
The referenced law isn't "red flag laws," those are something else in which simply reporting "my roomate or ex said bad things, proof? No why would I need that, take the guns first due process second, you heard Trump!"
Problem is, people do have rights, and as such before you can violate them you have to actually have a reason, like "them being involuntarily commited for hearing vioces and expressing homicidal ideation."
Red flag laws are written in such a way that your roomate can call them on you because he's mad you ate the last Oreo™, so the cops come and take your right to own guns after a secret hearing you weren't invited to, but it's ok because you will have the almost impossible opportunity to prove "nuh uh" in court 1 year after the date of arbitrary confiscation, unfortunately by then the cops may have already "destroyed" (read: stolen) the property they're now supposed to return so even if you do win that case: Oh well, no punishment for the cops, they can shoot innocent people with impunity, you think they'll get talked to for theft?
Of course that gets pushback, just like any other bad idea Trump supported (albeit from a different group in this case). Most people are however fine with the law we already have that could have prevented this, problem is people need to do their goddamn job and should have taken his shit/input his commital to NICs.
Can you find any precedent of someone getting red-flagged for something as simple as taking the last Oreo? From what I understand, there is a burden of proof on red-flag laws, it usually takes a judge to issue the order to confiscate. Cops are not given unilateral power to disarm someone without any procedure.
I like how you say this...
...And then immediately say this...
Literally, involuntary committing someone is a violation of their rights, but it is an violation that is well established by law. Just like say...taking away someone's guns for a period of time while they are openly threatening people and displaying extreme anti-social behavior
At the moment, they are only a thing in a few states and I'm not sure how often they're used even there. In some states like Florida it does require some proof, but in my state, while the proposed law got close but was not passed, in addition to everything I said above the complaintant was protected from being charged with perjory in the event it was found out they lied in the inital case.
Of course, the complaintant never could have told the judge "he took the last oreo," if that is what you mean, they would be required to lie, but tbh a secret hearing you're not invited to is easy for them to lie at so long as the burden of proof is as low as "he said..."
And reasonable. Broadening that to allow anyone who knows you to go to a judge in a secret hearing and say "he bad" with no other proof and bam 1yr without the right to self defense if you ever get it back all because he said she said is "unreasonable." It is also not well established by law considering all the laws are pretty new and all different in every state that has implimented them VS federal law that is reported (well supposed to be, they need to do their job) into NICs since like '96, and also requires a more "standard" burden of proof.
I mean be real, if the red flag laws didn't have a lower burden of proof than involuntary commitment, what would be the point of them existing? We already have IVCs, which have the added bonus of at least some caliber of mental health professional, if the burden of proof is the same the only difference is instead of attempting to actually get the person help all you do is temporarily take their guns ..until they buy more (legally or otherwise), make one, or stab someone, the danger is still there and hasn't been helped at all, with the IVC they show up in the national database instead of the just California database, with the red flag laws the cops show up and leave you alone with the angry, if disarmed, person, with IVCs they are forced into a facility, allowing someone time to escape, or time for the person to cool off with the ativan and doctors. I mean, the only reason for them is "I'm right." The question is "is that good or bad."
I'm firmly on the side of "it's bad, innocent until proven guilty is good."
You mean things that can get you IVC'd? So IVC, red flag laws are often built for abuse, you don't need them unless you intend to abuse it, and if they're not built to abuse they are functionally the same as an IVC just "less good anyway."
People don't get their guns taken away after literally threatening to kill people and getting institutionalized and you are worried about it happening over Oreos? How about we START with the self-identified violent maniacs and then worry about the oreo scenario?
Well, if it is really about enforcing the existing laws to you, then the current laws should be fine even though you agree with me they should be enforced. How about START with the current laws and then worry about the red flag laws?
Most of these laws, and most of the historic gun control in the US, is really intended to be used to keep guns from the "wrong sort" of people, and that means leftists and brown people generally. Crazy white guys were never the target of any prior firearms legislation or enforcement mechanism. That's really the core of the problem here.
What was his ratemyprofessor rating?
Gallows humor really does hit different when your 2 hours into doom scrolling lol
You mean reddit humor?
Gallows humor existed long before Reddit came along. It will be here long after Reddit is forgotten.
Yeah, I just meant it was a lame joke befitting of reddit comedians and their fans.
True, but continuing to vote for representatives who refuse to have any conversation about gun control still makes them complicit in this behavior.
Someone once told me, be careful of your thoughts for your thoughts may affect your words, be careful of your words because your words may come to become your actions, be careful of your actions for your actions may reflect on your character.
If you ask me, owning a firearm and making violent threats don't necessarily mean actions, but I agree that there's a definitive correlation. I guess that I still believe that the action itself is the most honest and serious commitment to something a person can express.
I think the fundamental issues with guns is that they SUBSTANTIALLY shorten the time and effort to put thoughts into action. Thinking "man, i want to kill everyone here." is a pretty abstract thought, until you actually have the means to kill everyone there right at hand.
Jupp. And it's so effortless. Try to pull that shit with a knife.
And Republicans will still refuse to do any sort of enforcement law.
It doesn’t matter. Not what you say or how many people get slaughtered because of their powertripping fantasies.
The last time I argued with these folks, it was on r/Europe I think. Besides the rabid antics their arguments were…interesting? My favourite was „Imagine needing another man to protect your home“. Some time later one of them, a young English man, even became famous. By killing his mother and a couple of others. And of course it was a super incel with a multitude of mental health issues.
The point I’m trying to make is, they don’t care. Or at the very least they are deluded to a point that they don’t see what damage it does.
There are so many guns in the US right now that it's ridiculous. Gun control here would be great... If it were done a hundred years ago. I'm not saying I'm against common sense laws, but like... Pandoras box is open here.
There are 120 firearms for every 100 civilians that live in the U.S. We have 46% of the total worldwide statistic for civilian ownership. The US makes up only a meager 331.9 million out of 7.89 billion people worldwide. That means 4.2% of the world owns 46% of the guns... And those people are all American.
On top of this, some of the most heinous shootings in US history were performed with illegally obtained weapons. Columbine is one of the examples most will recognize.
I'm not leading up to anything here, I just wanted to educate everyone on how fucked we are.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership
Definitely, but your argument is unfortunately what keeps us from ever doing anything about it. Thinking that it can't be done is just not good enough.
Age limits and rubber bullets for veterans would probably help
America has too many guns to ever have gun control. Move to Canada if you want that peace of mind.
People have vices, violence is a vice too
I don't know anyone who picks up a six pack of violence on their way home from work. Just kidding lmao I know what you mean.
I am against gun control laws and this blood is not on my hands.
You may be blind to it, but it's there.
Your past failure to learn from these continued atrocities is your complicity. Your current preference to protect the tools of violence over lives is your complicity. Your future vote to keep the status quo even as history repeats itself is your complicity.
On the contrary. I believe the tools of violence are the only things that will allow us to protect lives.
Gun control has historically been used as a tool to oppress further those who resist oppression. You can see it today, every murder by the police is defended with "they reached for my gun" or "they had a gun". The gun control laws you want will be enforced by the police and they will be enforced selectively against minorities. The atrocities you reference are almost universally committed by right wing straight white men. I can assure you no gun control will stop them from acquiring firearms.
There is an explicit example of this in Israel today. The settlers are allowed and encouraged to possess firearms while the Palestinians are explicitly disallowed.
It's ahistoric to say that gun control will save lives. This country only implemented gun control when indigenous and black people began carrying firearms in self defense. Many black men concealed carried pistols to defend against lynchings which is how we have concealed carry restrictions. Because it became illegal to conceal carry, the lynchings continued. Atrocities continue.
This has gotta be the most informed comment in the entire thread.
While I appreciate your effort to sound informed, you're wrong.
The US is the only developed country in the world with a serious gun violence issue and it's also the only developed country where firearms are flooding the streets.
The US is not more mentally ill than other developed countries. The difference is access to weapons. You can choose to live in denial about that, because you prioritize your weapons over lives, but, like I said, that makes you complicit.
I don't think you read my comment. I didn't mention mental illness. And I explained how access to firearms will not be restricted to those who commit the violence.
I would prefer to live in a country with no guns but that is not the reality we live in. And it will not be the reality no matter how many laws get pressed. They will be selectively enforced by a fascist police force.
In Colorado, there is a magazine capacity limit of 15 rounds. The police choose not to enforce this. You can walk into any gun store and buy a drum magazine holding 150 rounds. In a metropolitan area with probably the most horrific mass shootings. The only time it will ever be a crime is when the police murder a brown person with a magazine holding more than 15 rounds.
I understand you want to live in a safe community and don't want to read news about mass shooters every week. I think you should accept this and act accordingly, don't bring a knife to a gun fight. The people who hold power do not care and laws they would implement would not stop the violence and would disenfranchise vulnerable communities.
I appreciate your honesty and perspective from where you sit. But this is also exactly why things never change and we experienced massacre after massacre. That "it can't be done" attitude. It can be done if you vote for people who want to do something about this. The reality is that, in general, Republicans don't want anything to change, so they will never get my vote. Whenever I can, I vote for candidates who want to press a full repeal of the 2nd amendment. No guns = no gun violence.
If there were to be an actual ban on firearms that starts with the police, I would support it.
Republicans passed the mulford act in California.
Sure, we can start with the police:
What the U.S Can Learn from Countries Where Cops Are Unarmed
Yup, you're right, because millions of people have owned guns legally for hundreds of years, it's their fault and blood is on their hands for this mass shooting.
Your past failure to learn from these continued atrocities is your complicity. Your current preference to protect the tools of violence over lives is your complicity. Your future vote to keep the status quo even as history repeats itself is your complicity.
Yup my failure to learn is my complicity, it's all my fault. You sure know a lot about me. I'm going to need a few to come up with a better reply though, I've been coughing up straw all day.
Guns three hundred years ago were only slightly more dangerous than a guy with a rock and a mean your mama so fat joke. It isn't hundreds of years it's like 150 years.
I'd rather be shot with a modern hollow point today with modern medicine than shot with ball ammo and get the medical care from 300 years ago, but that's just me.
Literally not even remotely relevant to what the conversation was but go off.
I'd also rather get hit with a semi truck today with modern medicine than get run over by a horse and carriage in 1840.
But I don't see what that has to do with the fact that a semi truck traveling at max speed can level a small building vs a carriage just kinda flattening it's own horses on impact.
I don't see what any of this has to do with anything honestly. But go off.
Yes it is literally just you. You are the only person on earth gaming out situations where you have a choice between getting shot 300 years ago or shot today.
I'm feeling warm and tingly inside
You dropped this chief /s
10 million were tortured and shoved into ovens and gas chambers in Germany. That blood is on the hands of gun control supporters.
86 people were murdered and 434 injured with a rental truck in Nice, France. More than any other mass shooting in history. The tools are not the problem. Indiscriminate murder is incredibly easy and will remain so regardless of what laws you pass. The only thing you take away is the ability for individuals to defend themselves.
Guns have been an American pastime for as long as America has been around and yet only in the last ~30 years did we begin to see a rise in crimes of this type.
This guy was former military and it sounds like he was hallucinating. Better mental healthcare could have prevented this tragedy. Along with I'm sure a myriad of other, more difficult solutions.
A truck is not designed specifically to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible. Most firearms are. This type of firearm certainly is.
You can't sit in a hotel room in Las Vegas, hundreds of yards from a crowd, and kill 60 people and wound more than 400 with a truck or a knife. Very different tools.
And I really don't care about your gun "pastime" or "rights." I care about getting my kids safely home from school and how having 5-year-olds do active shooter drills. Insanity.
Car bomb detonated by remote control, IRA style
And yet it does the job all the same. That's the whole point.
I'm sure it was intentional but you missed the point.
Did you even read my comment? Try throwing that truck from a hotel room in Vegas and see how many people it kills. It does not do the same job and it's not designed to do the same job.
I don't agree with Helen, but their point stands. The truck did complete the intended action of executing the 84 people all the same. That being said, there are more stop gaps for a reckless driver (bollards are everywhere in the US). Stopping someone with a loaded trigger is a lot harder. I think the France situation was exceptional and not a standard road rage incident/attack. What would need to happen to have a fair assessment is compare the per capita fatality from road rage incidents to armed attacks.
It happened in Berlin at the Breitscheidplatz in 2016 on a christmas fair too where 12 people were murdered by an islamist with a truck. Since these events I feel I've seen a lot more concrete roadblocks capable to stop trucks here in populated areas in european cities.
LOL your comment is completely ridiculous. You obviously don't need to throw it from a hotel room, you can simply drive it down a road full of people.
I have literally no idea what your point is.
A couple points.
One: No armed militia is going to stop the US 7bn dollar military apparatus on home territory. Don't bring up Vietnam. Don't bring up Afghanistan. If you think gravy seals navy is anything compared to the Viet Cong you are deluded.
Two: using the France terrorist road vehicle attack as a counter is disingenuous use of stats/numbers. You can't compare a singular attack to the average gun based attacks in the US. What you would do -if you really cared to compare them- is take the average per capita road rage incident or vehicle based murders and compare them to the gun related mass shootings / deaths. You can control for many factors too (time frames, region, age, etc). Something about guns being readily available makes them more likely to be used. We have millions of people driving and only so many intentional terrorist attacks using vehicles.
It's a tired argument I'm not interested in taking up again, but the answer is yes, they can. The military didn't drop bombs on Waco.
I didn't. I compared it to every mass shooting in the history of the country. The moral of the story (since you missed it) is that you can ban guns and it won't stop people from just using something else when they want to hurt large groups of random people.
Which is precisely why "gun deaths" and "gun violence" is a terrible metric. Even if you could theoretically take them all away, they'd just use something else (like a rental truck). Notice a theme here?
Yes. The theme is your inability to understand stats. If cars, which are more readily available than guns are able to cause more damage every shooter would go for that but reality is guns are easier. Sure, if they're determined they will find a way, but people tend to go for the easiest path. Deterrents tend to slow the process as studies have shown. That's why looking at stats is so useful for understanding circumstances and deterrents. That's if you really wanted to have an unbiased honest conversation.
Waco is not serving your argument. Firstly, the military was not involved. Second, we're talking 4 ATF agents lost compared to 76 adults. Soooo....I don't see the relevance. The Xbox gravy seals is not going to live up to it's expectations. Shit, is proud boys the best example of the 2a crowd because they look like they can't run a mile either (that's must my opinion though, maybe the photos are deceiving).
I believe the point they are making is that "sure guns are the easiest path until you ban guns, then something else (seemingly cars is suggested) would become the easiest path and therefore would be 'switched to' by those wishing to cause violence, as their violent ideation was not dealt with merely the tool was, so now the tool has changed."
I.e, most people hammer in nails with a hammer becuse it's the easiest path, but if you ban hammers and I need this nail in this wood, I guess I'll use the back of my wrench. Sure, it isn't as good but it'll work just fine. I wouldn't say "oh well nothing can be built, guess I won't build shit," if I'm significantly determined to get that nail in I'll do everything in my power to do so including using tools not exactly meant for the job but that'll work.
One could make the argument that "at least it takes me longer to build the thing," or "you'll be able to build less things," but that is only true assuming I downgrade to a wrench. I could make my own hammer easily, or I could upgrade to a nail gun (in this analogy I guess that'd be a pressure cooker and some nails Boston Marathon style.)
They do not seem to be saying "cars are more effective than guns," imo, though it seems to be taken that way by (possibly you and) others in this thread.
The research shows that deterrents work. The more there are in place, the less likely the acts are going to be committed. That's why gun owners have such a high success rate with suicide. It's much easier. You can all keep insisting that the attackers will switch to the next best thing but if that was the case, every other country in the world would have an equal amount of murder sprees, just committed by cars instead? Reality shows that mass killings in developed countries happen predominantly in the US. Why is that?
Japan has very few firearms however still has a high suicide rate
True. That's why we shouldn't compare US suicidality to cultures that are quite different and use similar cultures for control when evaluating stats. For instance, I wouldn't look at the success rates of building a Starbucks in Mogadishu to long island. They are too different.
I like your thinking
Sure, suicide is easier with guns, but Japan demonstrates quite well that they are hardly a prerequisite. Guns are banned in Japan and so, to the other commenter's point, they find another way to achieve their goals. Guns aren't even statistically the most effective, drinking on train tracks is (or doing fentanyl on the train tracks, hit ya with the 2x.)
Sure if you don't account for any other differences between countries like mental health or other social services, or culture, or anything. Unfortunately in reality it is rarely that black and white, there are other differences.
Suicide is definitely faster with guns. I wouldn't call it easier. You can take yourself out quietly, cleanly and peacefully with stuff you can buy over the counter at any pharmacy on the planet.
No, before you ask, I won't post specifics here on how to do it. If you are considering ending your life, please get help. If you are in a country that allows for medical euthanasia, please work with them rather than take your life on your own.
The studies I refer to use local groups for control and not other nations. It is worthwhile looking up the studies.
Absolutely there is more nuance, I was responding to the person that brought up the Paris truck attack. All things combined, the deterrents are what seem to have the most effect.
Sure, but deterrents also have to be effective. Simply banning assault rifles for instance will just transfer it to the already-more-often-used handguns. Background checks are already a thing, unfortunately the Gov won't give gun owners access to NICs for private sales (though they've been begging for decades, and that would help), but the people who pull these shootings are always some shit like this where they should have kept him IVC'd (which federally, legally, disqualifies him from firearms ownership and he should have had them confiscated and the IVC reported to NICs, already all laws people just didn't do their job), or steal the guns from someone, or just are able to squeak through with a clean background. And some things like mental health checks are already a thing with the IVC but tbh I think things like "no guns for people with PTSD" sounds pretty fucked up even if that would help, people with PTSD have rights too.
I agree. I firmly believe something like universal background checks and closing the private sales loophole would be a step in the right direction. Again, these aren't intended to be perfect solutions, they are just meant to slow it down. We can't let perfect be the enemy of progress.
Yes, because every other country is otherwise identical...
No. It doesn't.
However, I can think of a certain group of unarmed people right now being murdered by the hundreds/day by an invading force.
That's cute. Hamas is armed to the teeth and well organized. How's it going for them? It's not even the US military but the IDF. I'd really like to see Derrick put down his Xbox controller and get to it.
Agreed
...what stats? You mean stats of the most successful mass murders? I think that belongs to trucks and planes.
Guns are just what they see on TV. Lots of people use cars, bombs or whatever else. In the case of France they didn't have guns, but it obviously didn't stop them.
Uuuuhhh but that WAS my argument...
It doesn't matter. No one is keeping score. The point is they stood up for themselves and gave the ATF a fuckin' helluva time. Wanna take a poll on how many armed citizens there are vs. ATF agents? Or even the entirety of the US military?
Yea the military was never involved. So it has nothing to do with my initial point. Buck and Chuck are not taking down the US army. I don't know why we got sidetracked with it.
You're the one who brought it up?
The point is the military won't be dropping bombs on its own people.
WACO negotiations took 53 days, but MOVE was given a day to leave before two bombs were dropped in the middle of rowhouses in Philadelphia 😂 arming yourself to discourage the government works way better when the government is already favorable to your cause.
False. Spain 1936.
The phone is ringing, it's for you. Sounds like some miners in West Virginia from 1921 would like to talk to you.
Whoa, you got a time traveling phone!?
Nah, you're just living that far in the past.
Wait so IM a time traveler!? And I didn't even know it! 🤯🤯🤯
You're not a time traveler, you just have the mental acuity of a fossil.
You're so confident. Why? Even after I showed you ATF agents alone can suppress an insurrection before we even bring in armed guards.
Why wouldn't I be?
LOL you're talking about a handful of looney cultists. I'm talking about a revolution.
You're still so confident despite having 0 counter-arguments
Then why bring up Waco at all?
Fuck dude. I can't. We're done here. Bye.
At least I'm not the one making statements with full confidence. "The military won't drop bombs on it own people" . Open a history book. Any. Ever.
That's because the FBI dropped tear gas and then in the confusion, Waco militia accidentally set the entire place on fire.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege
There is a mountain of evidence to indicate that that's not at all what happened.
Show me then, I'm ignorant of the Waco raid.
Educate yourself, it'll be good for you.
The "nazi gun control supported the holocaust" argument has been debunked for a very long time. Argument debunk Nazi gun control laws
Frtuermore, gun control supporters of today are not the same as NAZI gun control supporters - who disarmed Jews.
This misinformation disappoints me, but the nature of your comment is overwhelmingly correct.
Horrifying words that ring true. Gun control is in my opinion moot for many reasons. This guy deserved more healthcare.
Your arguments about vans are OK but your fascist talking points tell me you're not worth listening to.
No, it hasn't. Several people have provided their opinions on the matter. Certainly biased opinions. It can't be "debunked" with anything less than a time machine and a militia the size that would make the NRA blush.
Doesn't matter if they're the same or not. Only thing that matters is whether the people are disarmed. Regimes change.
The fucking 1% of Germans who were jewish, who were forcefully disarmed were not going to avoid getting genocided by remaining armed or trying to purchase more arms.
Yes. They would. And they killed more than the jews, you know? About 40% we're non-Jewish.
Your arguments so far are that people saying this are obviously biased. If we assume those persecuted could have gained firearms, armed themselves and formed a highly organized militia - all while facing road blocks at each and every turn - do you really think this militia could have kept a genocide from occurring?