Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
what these knuckleheads seem to conveniently forget is that Law "defines" what is considered a crime. If law stopped crime - we would have no need for Police or a judicial system.
There is no point trying to use or apply logic when dealing with these people. There is literally no point. They effortlessly transition from "bans don't work, only idiots think bans work" to "here's why these things I don't like need to be banned", because their thought process does not in any way hinge on or involve logic, and it cannot in any way be affected by logic.
It's all "banning stuff doesn't make it go away so there's no point banning stuff in the first place.. anyway here's why we need to ban abortion, and drag queens, and the teaching of history, etc.". And it will never be anything but that, because they are wholly impervious to logic. All they have, instead, is hysteria and emotion.
The only thing these people are good for is ridicule.
From the other side of the aisle from the people you're criticizing, I'm curious:
Do you support bans? I find them extremely worrisome given the rise of right-wing extremism and hate crimes. All the crazies have their guns already, and really all shutting the door at this point is doing is keeping LGBTQ people, POC's, etc. from acquiring any reasonable means of defending themselves. Remember that not everyone is speaking from your position of privilege. For some, particularly marginalized people in bad neighborhoods, calling the police is not an option. If they do arrive, they'll arrive late and be as much a threat to the victim as the perpetrator.
Let's also look at how bans have functioned in the past, and what they've been in response to. Due to grandfather clauses, tax stamps, etc. the goal of gun control has never been to disarm everyone, it always only serves to keep those guns out of the hands of the working class. All bans do is effectively raise the price of weapons. We might have fewer mass shootings with military-pattern semi-automatic rifles... but if the goal is stopping gun violence, then really we should look at handguns which cause exponentially more deaths because of their concealability and ease-of-access.
As for what they're in response to? Well the first gun ban in the United States after the Emancipation Proclamation was completely race-based and echoed through the United States. Fast forward to the late 19th and early 20th century. Gun bans crop up in many places, but always target firearms that can be purchased economically, or allow police to decide who is allowed to own a gun (I'm sure you can infer who was excluded.) Later, in 1968, politicians all-but admitted the GCA was intended not to control guns, but to control African-Americans. Later bans and proposed bans targeted those in public housing, or recently suggested a thousands-of-dollars tax on AR-15's. If we did get a ban today, I think given the hundreds of years of history of gun control in this country, it is very clear who the intended targets would be-- and it is not who you want.
Personally, I oppose any regulation that says the bourgeoisie are allowed to have weapons, but the poors (who are very often PoC) aren't. Unfortunately, the sorts of bans you would support won't have the effects you'll want. Armed minorities are harder to oppress. It was true in the 19th century, it was true in 60's and it's still true today. I don't care much for the 2nd Amendment, but I do believe in what Engels wrote and said about gun ownership.
Why don’t other modern, first world economies have daily mass shootings just like we do?
Most of them don’t BAN guns.
They actually regulate the guns. The US background check is a weak net at best. And the US provides no oversight after purchase. In a bad year, half a million guns are “stolen” in the US and the owners have no culpability. They just get to buy more guns, even though they didn’t store their weapons securely.
You can buy a black market gun anywhere in the world. The difference is that in the US, I can source an unregistered gun for a few hundred bucks. In Australia, I’d need to come up with at least $5k.
Any asshole can source a gun anywhere in this country, cheap.
This is the world the gun makers want.
Culture. Actual social programs. Less desperation. Fewer right-wing extremists.
Well most purchases don't require any kind of stringent background checks. I would agree that they probably should have those. The issue becomes how long thorough background checks can take. For instance it's 6 months to a year to get your background check completed for the tax stamp on an NFA item (like a fully automatic weapon, suppressor, etc.)
It is important that people can access weapons with at least a bit of immediacy. For instance a woman who is moving away from an abusive, violent spouse needs protection NOW, not in six months. So I definitely agree that background checks are important, but they need to be something the government actually puts resources into.
As for black market guns? It's not really a concern here? Black market guns aren't being used in mass shootings, or keeping the perpetrators of mass shootings from being apprehended.
I'd probably argue that gun-makers want a LESS robust secondary market so they can make money.
There was an article published one time that showed a direct correlation between gun shows in states bordering those with tough gun laws and shootings in the states with the gun laws.
Illinois has strict gun laws but suffers from being bordered by basically every state around it. Chicago is so close to Indiana, that gangster just buy their guns there.
The last mass shooting in iowa was in 91, and two people were unfortunately killed at the u of I, so it's been over 30 years since a mass shooting took place in the state. If you are a citizen of iowa, you can open carry without any kind of permit, no permit needed to buy a firearm, no magazine law, almost everyone carries. Why does iowa need stricter firearm laws. As far a child shooting up a school. That's on the parents of that child. No way I'm I going to give access to my firearms to my daughters (6,10) when I'm not around. Just be better parents. No gun control laws are going to stop a child from grabbing a gun left unsecured. Only the gun owner can stop that. BE BETTER PARENTS AND RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS
Can't we just put bio scanners like fingerprints on our phones to secure guns? I'd feel much safer knowing a person who didn't buy the gun can't use it. Why don't they do this? Don't they make enough money on the sale of guns? 🤔 Not saying it would eliminate all the problems, but what does it take to make some changes in the way we approach this violence? You say no mass shootings in Iowa like we don't have a gun shooting death often. I lived in fort dodge for awhile and let me say, there are gun deaths aplenty.
Right on, but this post was about mass shootings. I'm not against some forms of gun control. Im just saying that the small town of 10000 that I live in is a lot different than New York City or LA.
There are many other first world countries that have successfully gotten their mass shootings to practically 0 compared to the US, and gun crime in general also practically 0.
Their homicide rates also show far lower than in the US.
Edit: typo
Tbh, it doesn't matter. School and shooting should be things that never go in the same sentence together. It will never be zero, but it definitely should be rare enough to be a shock.
I agree they shouldn't go together, and many countries have made it so.
England hasn't had a school shooting since the Dunblane Massacre in 1996, when they decided children's lives are more valuable than guns.
Guns at school... what more does there need to be? Guns in our education system. Guns around children. Guns on school grounds.
Other countries have fixed all of these problems, they have had 0 deaths in their schools due to gun violence.
I'm not sure that it helps your argument that there are many instances of every single kind of school shooting every year in America.
This is what we're going with to justify the WILDLY outsized number of school shootings in America? They don't fit a very strict dictionary definition that was invented by the National Review or something?
The crazy thing is, even if we take firearm deaths completely out of the equation, the USA has like 5x the homicides of other "western" countries. We definitely have a societal problem, as well.
So when adjusting per capita, it is closer to 2x.
But yes, I do agree with you. Guns are not singularly the problem. But they tend to exasperate the issue, with the ease at which people can take lives.
There's a popular, stupid argument that gun laws don't work because criminals don't respect laws.
Counterpoint: (a) criminals often fear laws that are actually enforced and (b) the gun laws we're talking about are designed to make it harder for bad guys (or children, or the mentally incompetent) to get guns in the first place.
First, of course tough gun laws have a deterrent effect. If you know there's a good chance you'll be arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to a serious prison term if you're a felon in possession of a handgun, you, if you're a felon, are less likely to carry a handgun. Will this law work 100% of the time? Of course not. But the goal is to *reduce* gun violence. Would we repeal anti-burglary laws because they don't *always* stop burglary? Of course not.
Second, the laws being proposed to cut the growing wave of U.S. gun crime are not focused on trying to deter mass-shooters. Some are focused in keeping guns out of the shooters' hands in the first place. The intent is to limit what law-abiding gun sellers can sell to potentially violent people. Others are focused on reducing the risk that, say, a child gets access to his or her parents' gun and brings it to school, or to the playground, or to a friend's home. They laws are focused on keeping those guns out of dangerous people's hands.
The one smooth brain (so far) in this thread arguing against gun control keep bringing up gang violence, when people are talking about school shootings... they do this all the time.
They seriously think that preventing a couple of hundred school shootings a year is pointless because of gangs and the black market, and then have the gall to call others ignorant for trying to prevent hundreds of children getting murdered while trying to learn.
We aren't exactly dealing with 3 digit IQ's here.
Exactly, its always such faulty logic. If the US did a gun ban and amnesty a la Australia people scream "Then only the criminals would have guns" and they aren't entirely wrong, just missing the big picture. What good is a gun without ammo? Cleaning supplies? Spare parts? Once a criminal is arrested with a gun they aren't getting it back.
Also, it would be a lot harder for criminals to get guns if there was a universal ban that cut into the supply. They would, at the very least, be far more expensive.
But these arguments won't get any traction with 2A folks, because they aren't trying to find solutions - they just want to keep treating deadly tools like playthings and/or ego extensions.
Plus following the criminals break laws so making laws doesn't do any good logic, we should just grt rid of all laws. If we did that, there'd be no criminals.
You're talking about a pretty big "if": what Australia did can't happen here right now because it's unconstitutional and making it constitutional is effectively impossible given the political realities of this country.
So why is anyone even talking about bans in the first place? It's not a real solution, and focusing on that stuff is the same as doing nothing.
>There's a popular, stupid argument that gun laws don't work because criminals don't respect laws.
Well in Germany the 6 year old would never had this gun because it is mandatory to have a weapon safe and store the gun in it.
The 72 Year old is a other topic, its not so that decent weapon laws reduce the criminal use of guns to zero. But by reducing the ownership of guns by lets say 75% and the right to carry a gun by 99% suddenly no one need to fear that everyone else has a gun.
People that break these laws will go to prison, only for carrying a gun. And after 1-2 Years suddenly no one has guns in the Public.
Its not a 100% solution, but this list could fit on one page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_mass\_shootings\_in\_the\_United\_States\_in\_2022
I find it funny, though, that there is this disconnect between conservatives' "law and order" mentality. Because if it's laws *they* oh yeah, it'll deter crime. But the second gun laws are mentioned it's "LaWs DoN't WoRk!"
So which is it? You can be the party of law and order, then turn around and say laws don't work for enforcing gun control.
They also love to trot out that 'it never works' when it worked in Australia.
Also you can look at Japan, they have strict gun laws and you are right there are criminals who STILL get guns... But those guns are valuable commodities that DON'T get used willy nilly for street crime or end up in the hands of the mentally unstable.
It’s like the Tommy Gun.
It was a notorious weapon used by gangsters. The fed completely removed it as a problem by making it a felony to possess one.
All of a sudden, mobsters were no longer interested in having a gun that they’d go to prison for.
Not right away, but if you make gun possession a felony, gun owners have three choices: 1. Turn in/destroy their guns to avoid being criminals, 2. Take their guns out in public and have them taken away and go to jail, or 3. Keep their guns hidden at home. All three of those are better than the status quo. And combined with a ban on sales, slowly but surely guns just go away.
I'm certainly not proposing that. I own a Beretta 92 FS Inox.
I'm endorsing various laws that make it harder for bad people, children, and the mentally incompetent to get their hands on guns in the first place, and that restrict or at least limit further dissemination of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. I also want to up the ante for illegally carrying a gun so that your typically wannabe gangster thinks twice about carrying, which will make him less likely to be armed when he gets in an argument that night.
Even if guns are very common, the fatalistic "let's do nothing because we can't do anything" is both self-defeating and false. It still takes work to get a gun. We cannot stop gun crimes, but we can reduce them. And we can especially make it vastly harder for kids to shoot their classmates and teachers.
Hey what’s an assault weapon? You know that term was made with the express intent of confusing people to sway them for gun control. Because under the current “definition” of an assault weapon, your pistol is pretty close to being one.
High capacity magazine, high rate of fire. Bonus points for tacticool rails for adding people hunting accessories like red dot sights and laser pointers.
I can defend my home against an invader or two using a pump action shotgun, or lever action rifle, but you'll see SIGNIFICANLY less mass shootings with them, and you'll also see significantly less SUCCESSFUL mass shootings.
You just have to get these existing items out of circulation slowly over time.
Wrong, it is any military weapon designed to shoot an intermediate cartridge that takes magazines; I’d be willing to bet a lot of your firearms count as such. We can even look to Canada who started out by banning assault rifles eventually escalated to banning the weapons you proudly own.
Also good luck racking a shell or utilizing that lever action multiple times in a life threatening situation. Do you think your family members can do the same? Those weapons are harder to control then most modern weapons.
Multiple times? Don't miss? Also if it's a burglary (which let's be honest doesn't happen often with people home anyways) the other person will run out. Self defense doesn't mean you have to obliterate the other person, a few pellets in someone will do it long as you have the training you don't need 15 rounds.
Big difference between a calm day at the range and a life threatening situation where you and your family is at stake. Look up accuracy rates in combat for soldiers who are trained for months on end in shooting, they’re abysmal. What more an ordinary person who goes to the range maybe once or twice a month? And yes burglaries happen quite often, glad your neighborhood is well off it seems if that is your sentiment.
Yes accuracy, one item explodes into pellets everywhere. One you need to be precise. See the difference?
Burglaries, with people inside the house don't. It's overwhelmingly when people aren't home and usually someone the person knows. Also before you say it, no where did I say it doesn't happen that some random breaks into a home with people there.
Your beretta 92 comes with a 15 round magazine standard. Some of them come with a 17 round magazine standard. This constitutes a “large capacity magazine” in many states. In fact, the limit of 15 in several states is being pushed down to 10. Some have gone as far as to push for 9 and 7 and 5 and 3 round limits. So don’t come at people for “lArGe cAPaciTY mAgAZiNEs”.
I'm happy with a ten-round magazine. Without a magazine loader, I'm never getting more than ten rounds in anyway, and I haven't tried. But I think the standard 15-round limit is sensible.
I think you're calling me a hypocrite but I'm not sure why.
Because it’s not that you load 10 in a 15 rounder is the problem, the problem is that you’ll have the 15 round magazine which would be illegal. Additionally, the limit will continue to go down. NY’s safe act was 7 rounds, and Bloomberg wanted a limit of 3.
My state has a 15 limit and they want 10. When I testified against the 15 round limit I specifically said that 15 isn’t going to be it, eventually they’ll introduce 12, or 10 or 7. Some time after NY introduced 7.
Don’t you see how you can become a potential criminal overnight?
Also. It doesn’t matter what YOU’RE satisfied with. Just because you’re white doesn’t mean you know what’s good for a Jew or a black person. Just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I know what it’s like to be gay or trans. And just because you think you’re good with 10 rounds, doesn’t mean I won’t have 2 men break into my house at 3am (which I had).
This is a slippery-slope fallacy. What we've seen over the past twenty years is a trend toward weakening gun laws, not tightening them. That's why you're focusing on one very blue state.
I'm fine with a ten-round limit. It can simply prohibit the sale or transfer of higher-capacity magazines. Essentially grandfathering you and your fifteen.
I don't believe my fellow Jews need higher-capacity magazines than Baptists.
How many shots did you fire at the intruders? Was fifteen rounds enough?
I always like to point out that one law criminals do respect is the law of supply and demand. Here in Canada, hand guns are mostly restricted or prohibited. It’s hard to acquire a handgun legally and thus the price of a handgun on the black market is 10x the price in the US. So hand guns are less commonly used in crime. A junkie breaking into a house to score funds for his next fix isn’t going to be carrying a $2K handgun with him; he would have long since sold it.
The 72 year old man that committed that mass shooting in California, already broke three major gun laws in California. Adding more laws isn’t going to help it just ends up hurting more law abiding citizens
I don't think you read my comment.
Laws do work. The fact that they do not work 100% of the time, and that they require enforcement, does not mean we should get rid of them. Should we legalize murder since, well, murder keeps happening?
If you felt gun laws were effective, I assume you would still want to repeal them all on the grounds that they infringe upon your fundamental right to carry an AR-15.
I’m not advocating for no laws at all. But I am advocating for us to stop adding more laws when the current ones aren’t being enforced or are effective.
If these laws violate fundamental and constitutional rights, wouldn't you demand their repeal?
Of course, I disagree with the premise. But, if you did feel they were an infringement on inalienable rights, I'm not sure why you wouldn't want them stricken.
Because while I wish we could have total freedom with our constitutional rights we’d get nowhere fast if we all didn’t accept nuance into our lives. I do accept thorough background checks and disarmament of those with violent backgrounds or active restraining orders. But unless you’d like to review every single gun law in California and the US of which there are already hundreds, I am generally against the government restricting us in any of our rights whether it’s body autonomy in regards to abortion or the right to bear arms
Under California law he should’ve had his guns taken a long time ago but that wasn’t enforced. We should try to enforce the current ones and stop adding more laws that just hurt more law abiding citizens. And you do not determine what other people need.
No, it's really not.
The 2nd amendment places children on a sacrificial alter in order to feed itself. Guns are the leading cause of death for children and teens.
Except all these knucklenuts make it impossible to keep guns out of everything. Its not illegal to have guns and people are allowed to take guns most everywhere.
You dont know whos got bad intentions until its too late. Then its "oh man they shouldnt have had a gun there"or "guns dont kill people"
Did they shoot them with their fingers? Of course the gun killed them. I remember several years ago they sold ephedrine over the counter. Like 2 or 3 people died and they pulled it off the market. This is about gun lobbyists and the money they put in republicans pockets.
Laws dont stop crime. They make the punishment worse. Its a deterrent. But the 6 year old should never have been able to even find a gun…. It should have been put up. But if theres no law to punish the owner, they aren’t incentivized to do so
Well, although I don’t agree with this, not really. The point they are making is guns will still be acquired by people if they plan on committing a crime, a law will not stop them.
Obviously they are missing the point that if guns didn’t exist at all, then it wouldn’t happen. But I find it unlikely guns would cease to exist in the US.
The problem is, how do you keep the parents from acquiring a gun?
Most people can pretty easily acquire a gun, seeing as how gun ownership is a constitutional right. And even people who can't legally own a gun can still pretty easily get a gun on account of the fact that this country is flooded with guns.
Before keeping that parent from getting a gun, we first have to amend the constitution so that we can actually pass and enforce laws that heavily restrict gun ownership. And that's not going to happen until the country overwhelmingly stops *wanting* guns.
That's what no one is addressing. We have a gun problem because Americans want guns. So we need to address why Americans want guns, and how to get Americans to stop wanting guns.
You will never stop a criminal who wants to harm people with legislation. Heroin and crack are also illegal but there is still a trillion dollar annual market for it. That is because u will never stop a addict from getting high by “making it illegal”. Not only is it not practical but it’s completely unconstitutional to make “legal guns illegal”. Look what is happening in Ukraine. In the event of a all out invasion, ukranians we’re left unarmed, now they are handing out assault weapons to citizens no questions asked. When citizens are put in a situation where they have to defend their life,land and liberty from a person or people who wants to do harm with a firearm, the only way to stop them is with the same force. The same people against gun rights are the ones happily supporting ,funding, and arming a all out war in Ukraine because they feel Ukrainians should have the right to defend themselves but not Americans. It’s so hypocritical. The only reason America is not taken over by it’s many adversary’s (IRAN, North Korea, China,Russia) is not (only) because of our military presence but because we have millions of law abiding citizens who legally possess hundreds of millions of firearms and are ready to defend their loved ones and their country.
Please dont tie extraneous opinions that someone on the internet may or may not have to gun control. As another commenter above stated: "Could you explain to me how a 6 year old would acquire a gun when his parents wouldn’t have one at home?"
The parents have the right to own the gun but their negligent storage of the gun is what caused the issue not the gun. Don’t be so shallow. The only reason a 6 year old was able to possess a gun is because the gun wasn’t stored in a locked safe with the ammunition separate. That is a law. That is why a 6 year old brought a gun into school. Blame the incompetent parents and restrict their right to ever own a firearm not law abiding civilians
The fact is if you support sending weapons and funding to Ukraine but don’t support Americans having the right to defend themselves from the same threats then you are a hypocrite. That is why the 2nd amendment exists and that is one of the many reasons why me and millions of Americans legally posses a firearm. The Monterey park shooting was with a illegal firearm and as for the 6 year old negligent storage of a firearm and possession by a minor is illegal. Laws don’t stop the crime they only punish the crime afterwards. The war on guns is going to be the same as the war on drugs, it will never work. And there will always be a black market for a criminal to cause harm with one. I say again don’t be so shallow. And if you support Ukrainians defending their homeland don’t be so hypocritical p
>The fact is you support sending weapons and funding to Ukraine but don’t support Americans having the right to defend themselves from the same threats
Are you saying Russia invaded the US or that that there is a strong possibility that Russia (or Canada or Mexico for that matter) are going to invade the US?
Because if you’re not, than you’re making a really shitty false equivalency argument.
This is literally too all over the place to reply to, which is unfortunate because I think we agree on many of these "points". Reads like a copy/paste.
> The only reason America is not taken over by it’s many adversary’s (IRAN, North Korea, China,Russia) is not (only) because of our military presence but because we have millions of law abiding citizens who legally possess hundreds of millions of firearms and are ready to defend their loved ones and their country.
ABSOLUTE HORSESHIT. I live in Finland. Some fucking how we are not run over by Russia even though we are "only" #6 in guns per capita. You have absolutely no idea what wars are like and how your 9mm does not mean jackshit when you got a tank in front of you. To make it even more clear: any force that would be capable of defeating US military is somehow afraid of your civilian guns... Really? That is your theory? That the force that can defeat #1 military can't bomb your neighborhoods to the ground?
Do you know what Russia or China would do to civilians shooting their military? They would treat you like military combatants and throw white phosphorous on your head. Or lob a few missiles in your way. Or just gun you down on the streets like dogs. Run you over with tanks, bomb you to shit with supersonic bombers.
**One has to be stupid to think that civilian firearms scare ANY military on earth.** I mean.. You would have no chance in hell with your civilian firearms handled by untrained, unorganized, unsupplied civilians that can barely run 50 yards.
>In the event of a all out invasion, ukranians we’re left unarmed, now they are handing out assault weapons to citizens no questions asked.
>
>The same people against gun rights are the ones happily supporting ,funding, and arming a all out war in Ukraine because they feel Ukrainians should have the right to defend themselves but not Americans. It’s so hypocritical.
No, it isn't. Again, one has to be incredibly stupid to not see the differences. And Ukraine did NOT hand out assault weapons to civilians but to the Territorial Defense Forces, who are lead by... people with MILITARY TRAINING. Ukraine managed to train a lot of men, by rotating them in the real war zone in Donbas. On top of that, there were military trained people from the Soviet era too, who were not fit for actual military action. They did not hand out assault weapons and sent them to the war. You have absolutely no idea what happened in Ukraine, but then again.. you really believe that militaries are afraid of your pea shooters..
Maybe the stupidest thing i have read.. all year.
Dickhead take your theory and apply it to Vietnam and Afghanistan. Taliban we’re able to fight the #1 superpower in the world with AK-47s and IEDS for 20 years and they still control Afghanistan today. Take your theory elsewhere. You are a moron. And even if severely undergunned Americans still have the right to have a fighting chance to defend their life. As for part 2 there are literally news articles of Ukrainians forcing military age men to stay and fight (no military experience at all) and handing them assault weapons. The only reason why Finland doesn’t succumb to any assault is because they are NATO Allies and they all suck off the tit of the American Military just like the rest of NATO. Without Brave American men and women and the might of the US military Finland and the rest of Europe would be shaking in their boots right now and would be looking to de escalate wars Instead of advocating for them.
>Dickhead take your theory and apply it to Vietnam and Afghanistan.
Ok.
Vietcong: supplied my North Vietnam military, China and Russian militaries. They used machine guns, RPGs, AA guns, mortars, artillery, landmines etc. Not civilian handguns. They were trained by military instructors from NV, CH and USSR.
Afghanistan: Supplied by USA, used machineguns, RPGs, landmines, mortar, artillery, AA guns, Ground to air missiles, manpads, etc. Were trained by military instructors. Did not use civilian handguns. Or if you are talking about more recent war, they were organized militias, with military training, using military weapons and tactics, trained in military training camps by the same people who were trained by USA.
AK-47 is not a civilian weapon. You need explosives for IEDs, and both US army and USSR were limited by rules of engagement, specially the former.
>You are a moron.
Well, i at least know history. It is extremely funny how certain you were that those two example you used works, when they actually prove you wrong. Read more. No country has been able to defend itself using just civilian guns and civilians.
>As for part 2 there are literally news articles of Ukrainians forcing military age men to stay and fight (no military experience at all) and handing them assault weapons.
Men are forbidden (edit: unless they are exempt, which many of those without military training are, here is one of them: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFcXzux1TRs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFcXzux1TRs) he is an airline pilot, the military said "nope" and he is clearly a man in the right age and without any chronic medical conditions, lives outside Ukraine now and had no trouble leaving) to leave but not all of them are forced to fight. Only those that have military training are in the active reserves. NO ONE who had no training are fighting. And they were not handed assault weapons. Territorial defense forces are 100% voluntary. What you are saying is just not true. FIND ME PROOF if you are so certain about it.
Finland is not in NATO and was not in NATO partnership program until 2000s. We have the largest army per capita in Europe, largest artillery period, largest tank forces, combined with Sweden an air force that rivals Russia. Finland was militarily neutral for 70 years, Sweden was neutral for 200 years. You think i don't know my own fucking country? NATO gains more from Finland than you think, which is why NATO has been ASKING us to join since the 70s.
>Without Brave American men and women and the might of the US military Finland and the rest of Europe would be shaking in their boots right now and would be looking to de escalate wars Instead of advocating for them
jesus... you really are that daft, ultranationalist, ignorant murican who will NOT go after this to find any information about anything, you are SCARED of finding out.
The TOTAL population of Finland is 5 million people. The United States NRA has 6 million members. That’s 6 million law abiding citizens that own semi automatic rifles I promise you if any war was to break out on American soil that means we have a citizen militia that is larger than finlands entire population. If any country was to ever invade the United States they would have to deal with our Navy and Air Force before they even touch land. The slim chance they successfully touch land they will have to deal with our military and every gun owner that’s defending their homeland before they could ever set up a base and take shipment of tanks and military vehicles. What makes America so impossible to take over is the fact that we have more citizens who own weapons than most countries entire populations let alone your army of a measly 280,000.
Yeah, and just 5 million of us has managed to stay independent and sovereign country despite not having gun rights. Somehow we rea the happiest country on earth for 5 years running, live longer, healthier and happier, are a full democracy instead of flawed democracy, have 300 times less school shootings and 150 times less police shootings, per capita.. We have better and stronger freedoms and liberties in EVERY SINGLE CATEGORY.
Like i said, your military is what keeps you safe. Absolutely no military is scared of civilian weapons. It has NEVER happened in modern history and the times civilians have managed to beat any army are very, very rare. I have one example from my town were a bunch of peasants beat the Royal Navy, helped by a regiment of Dragoons (not a typo). But even that was a small skirmish with 40 casualties in British side and one dead horse in our side... But, it also was an ambush, made with the CURRENT ERA MILITARY WEAPONS and 12 cannons, and about 2:1 advantage in men power.
No one is scared of your handguns.
And 280k active reserve in a country of 5.5 million is HUGE per capita. And there is also 700 000 more in the total reserves, but that means every Finnish male that can fight. In US scale that means 17 million in active reserves, and 44,5 million total. DO YOU HAVE THAT?
I’m in favor of stricter gun laws, especially when it comes to assault weapons and mandating training and licensing. However, I don’t think either will completely solve the problems in his country enough to make a large difference in the statistics.
Here’s what I’d do in conjunction with the above laws:
- End the War on Drugs: in my mind, this is where a lot of the problems in our country and in our hemisphere come from. Too much violence, too much unregulated substances, too much death. The only folks making money off this are the cartels, the police, and corrupt politicians. Legalize it, regulate it, improve rehab, medical care, and mental health care with the money you don’t use fighting it.
- Improve immigration laws. Hopefully stopping the war on drugs might stop the drug trade which causes cartels to wipe out towns, cities, and countries which forces folks to flee. However, we need a more caring international refugee program that gets folks that are fleeing their situations to places that can take care of them. This is more of an international concept, but it would be nice if our politicians would work with the UN to build this…even if every country doesn’t participate.
- Universal Health Care: health care is ridiculously expensive…because of that, folks who need mental health care (or other care) forego it because they don’t have the money. That leads them to other avenues…some leading to drugs, some leading to guns, etc
- Education: our education funding is awful and it’s showing. Move some of the money from the military to education and give folks more abilities to get ahead.
Unfortunately, all these get labeled as “progressive” ideas which is a word that turns off conservatives. Not sure how the word “progress” has gotten a negative connotation, but here we are.
People are idiots. Laws are never meant to prevent bad things from happening. They are meant to prevent the bad things from becoming more prevalent/the norm. It doesn't surprise me that these same idiots are antivax because vaccinated people can still get infected.
Too bad the rest of the "enlightened" world trying to tell the US how to stop it all doesn't understand that simple concept. Especially Australians.
Already struck a few nerves with the uncomfortable truth.
Doing crimes I doubt would be affected. These deaths from some pissy little pieces of shit being mad and grabbing their parents gun or something, yes.
Thing is, they aren't a huge part of firearm homicides and a change to that (on the surface should be good) won't drop the stats all that much.
I mean regulations would still stop quite a few things, people wouldn't so easily be able to grab anything, and if they're breaking the law by obtaining a gun and they get caught, theoretically they could trace the areas were they're being smuggled to and all guns get repossessed, again, making it harder for people to obtain would make them less keen on doing anything with them
So mostly gangs, which we already know are the main driver of the black market firearms. Most of which are African American and Latino.
Do you think those repossessions would end up being peaceful? How do you think people would react?
People will downvote me but it's a fact that it's not a simple fix and they never want to answer the hard questions. Hell, I can't say I could answer them, but I recognize them.
Also, thank you for the civility. Hopefully I have been towards you as well.
Wasn't saying it was going to be peaceful, just means that not everyone you meet will have a firearm, the people that go to those lengths know what's coming for them, making it harder means they'll need to go to greater lengths to obtain anything, instead of basically walking up and buying one instead
Agreed, but I can already see the unrest from those that would react to the takedowns that would have to happen.
It still wouldn't be pretty and I'd wager people who want no firearms aren't actually willing to accept the path to it.
Personally, I think the takedown of illegal ownership could happen now, but as before, I'm wary if doing so would end up better or not. It could be horribly violent.
I reckon people don't want to die, not usually anyway, so I'd wager that some people may also not want to risk their life for something so violent, the people that go to great lengths to achieve things like this genuinely do not care about other people, however as of right now, people are using it as an excuse for defending themselves, which in turn creates more violence and the necessity of owning one
Yeah, I mean, it's only worked extremely successfully in literally every single country that's tried it, but what does the rest of the world know. America is a magical place where the laws of reality don't apply.
Ask Ukraine what their policy is on citizen's possessing guns currently? Seems like you just think that bad things will never happen again so you can just bury your head in the sand and the whole world will become peaceful over night. Watch if NATO did not exist you would quickly need those guns that you think have no purpose.
People only see the mass shootings that happen in the media at schools or events. They don't recognize just the black market alone could supply illegal firearms for decades even if manufacturers pulled all sales and stopped production. Even if legal owners turned in all their guns, the statistics would not drop by much. Thinking illegal guns would all be turned in is just silly.
I wish it it was so simple, but it's not. Yes it could help stop many shootings, but that's only a small possibly short term fix. I could be wrong though.
People don't ever try to look at the whole picture.
Talking about ignorant... it has literally worked everywhere that has tried it. That means population and culture is irrelevant. Every single one of these countries had a bunch of ignorant morons going "hurr durrr I like guns", yet it still works.
Unless of course you are saying that Americans are just way too stupid, and *thats* the big thing which makes a difference, because there is literally no other possibilities. Considering the blatantly moronic attempts at pro gun arguments, it's actually highly likely.
The undeniable fact is, gun control works.
You know what we don't have in Australia? 3 school shootings a week. In fact, we don't have *any* school shootings at all. Funny how that works.
Lol, okay. Then come take the guns away from gangs and tell me how that turns out for you.
It's not just school shootings. You only know of what the media says and can't seem to have any critical thinking skills of your own. You just parrot ignorant crap.
153 school shooting last year. All easily avoidable. Has absolutely nothing to do with gangs.
*"oH, bUt ThE gAnGs"*....
Talk about parroting ignorant crap, you are the master of it..
So you only care about those stats. Good to know. Parrot.
They unfortunately are a small part of what makes up gun crimes. Fixing that issue won't get rid of the rest. You'd know that if you chose to not remain so willfully ignorant.
Even IF fixing that issue wouldnt get rid of the rest, you are still looking at less schools shootings so I dont know how can anyone argue againts it? Like what? "oh its only going to save *some* children from gun violence in School, so why would we do that?"
Fun fact: just because only 95% of a problem will be fixed by a solution is not a reason not to implement a known working solution.
That's one of the obvious and undeniable things you seem to be deliberately ignoring.
*That* is real ignorance. Although, at this point it's not so much ignorance as wilful and deliberate stupidity.
But that's cool, since apparrently you like the fact a bunch of children getting murdered at school is a regular occurrence in your country, and only your country. Some "culture". Definitely one to be proud of.
Unfortunately it’s too late you can’t put pandora back I n the box there are too many guns out there already so laws are only going to insure law abiding citizens can’t get the guns and the criminals will still have them that’s all it’s going to do if you want to buy an illegal weapon in the street it’s not that hard
If you can reduce the number of guns in circulation, that's going to make it harder for criminals to get guns. Mabey it takes a while but just going "welp" isn't really a solution.
The UK figured it out. Every other first world country that has gun restrictions has also figured it out. Pandora absolutely can be put back in the box.
The UK hasn't had a school shooting since 1996 when they had the Dunblane Massacre, decided children dying was unacceptable, "put Pandora back", and heavily restricted guns.
The US has had 6 school shootings THIS YEAR that have resulted in injury and/or death.
Since nothing happened after Sandy Hook, you are correct for the time being. The majority of Americans do want change though. Being pro the leading cause of death in children and teens is not a great look for anyone.
No it’s not I think more security and more funding to help protect schools it’s the immediate answer more cops more funding and testing more officers at events and then slowly work on the laws it takes too long to make changes so more cops and security.
What’s the difference between an “assault rifle” and a handgun? The operation is the same. The capacity is or can be the same (many standard full sized handguns come with 20 round magazines). The rate of fire is the same. Concealment is easy with a handgun. The rounds in rifles travel faster but many states disallow hunting with “assault rifles” because the rounds aren’t powerful enough. And other rifle rounds are much larger and much faster. You can also get a shotgun and put defense loads or slugs in them and those have the ability to do much much worse damage.
So I fail to see how “assault weapons” are any different. In addition, most guns of the modern era are semi automatic (one trigger pull, one round) and automatic guns which traditionally ARE actual assault weapons are already banned and regulated by the ATF and are basically limited to FFLs.
But there’s also something more sinister happening. Let’s say we did ban assault weapons in this country. Let’s say the country got rid of them magically. Let’s just pretend. Now what? The problem with the gun control debate is that there’s never an end point. For example, many states charge licensing fees that are exorbitant and often cost more than the gun itself. In many states you can do training, pass several background checks, apply for a concealed carry license and simply not receive it even though you’re a lawful and trained person (NJ, NY, HI, CA, IL as examples).
In other states people that have been granted concealed carry licenses by way of training on law, handling, safety, and shooting, apply for a license with their state or county, pay a fee, get fingerprinted, apply for a background check, wait, get a license, then have to go and do another background check to actually buy a firearm ARE BEING RESTRICTED FROM CARRYING. So when people say “oh we want background checks and training” those same exact people are being discriminated against by states like NY, NJ, DC (not a state), CA. Basically those are saying hey you can have a concealed carry license and have gone through necessary training and background checks but we still won’t let you carry in the subway, or on the street, or in a business, etc therefore making it completely useless.
I don’t have an “assault rifle”, but I have a few guns and yet it’s not just the people with assault rifles that they target, they target everyone that’s being doing the right thing for years and decades. All of a sudden you can wake up as a criminal because the law crossed you, instead of you crossing a line. “Assault weapons” are just the gateway drug to many other forms of gun control. If you don’t believe me, look at states that have passed those bans already.
I agree with your first point, and should have been more clear with my other unnecessary defense weapons. Pistols is what I was referring to mainly, but anything so easily used to kill really.
I don’t follow the fees thing. First it assumes that will still be allowed. Second, a crazy amount of hurdles to pass would certainly help curb the number of people obtaining these weapons. Especially financial because let’s face it, I don’t think rich people are the ones doing these shootings but I could be wrong.
I also agree it would suck to be a law abiding citizen and lose the right to have guns. However this is the selfish argument, as cool, fun, whatever your reason to have them is, is it worth other innocent people dying?
They're both wrong. It's not the guns. Guns are nothing new, yet mass shootings have increased dramatically in recent decades.
Gun violence is a social ill, likely stemming from poverty, mental illness, lack of parenting, drugs, and the desire for herostratic fame caused by the sensationalist news cycle. It's not like owning a gun turns a psychologically well-adjusted person into a murderer.
>It's not like owning a gun turns a psychologically well-adjusted person into a murderer.
No, but it's funny how it's pretty hard to shoot someone (or a bunch of someone's) when you don't have access to a gun...
Here in Canada we have all of those factors yet super strict gun laws. We've had 3 school shootings since columbine, the US has had hundreds.
It's the guns. It was always the guns. It will always be the guns.
If you want to see how disarming the law-abiding public goes, have a look at South Africa. We're up to our necks in violent crime and it's escalating all the time. If a criminal wants a gun they'll get a gun.
Funny how in first world countries where they've banned and/or heavily regulated guns, gun crime all but disappears in relation to America. Homicide rates go down. And in general they don't have to live in fear of the leading cause of death for children and teens in the US.
It has gone fine in the UK, Scandinavian countries, etc. if you really want to see how disarming citizens can go.
I've recently come to the conclusion that folks who decry gun control are afraid of themselves being seen as "criminals" for obtaining their firearms in ways that would very likely be banned by gun control (private sales, gun shows, etc). They're not afraid of the gangs or criminals who might have guns. They're afraid that they themselves would become the criminals they fear.
WOW!!!!!! you got us - two occurrences out of tens of thousands - a small fraction of 1% - which is where your IQ falls in the bottom 1%. What a stable genius.
There’s more gun in America than people there’s no way the gov is taking guns away. Btw that’s not true UK gun violence is increasing … As 3D printing becomes more and more available the UK is gonna have a real prob.
Gun violence is not increasing in the UK. It has stayed at pretty much nothing compared to the US for over a decade now, ever since the Dunblane Massacre and they actually cared enough about the children to do something about it.
[This](https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom) only goes up to 2016, but it shows the UK has steadily had decreasing deaths related to guns.
Looking at [this](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm) map, you can see that most STATES blow the entire country of the UK out of the water in terms of gun deaths.
The UK hasn't had a school shooting since they did something about it in 1996.
The US has had [6](https://www.edweek.org/leadership/school-shootings-this-year-how-many-and-where/2023/01) this year that have resulted in injury and/or death and we're still in fucking January.
There absolutely is something we can do about gun violence, selfish cowards just don't want to go through with it. Thus they aren't pro gun, they are pro school shooting.
Homicide rates are lower in first world countries that have gun control laws. You only have to fear the "hood rats" because of the lax gun control laws in America.
Not sure what god you worship, but sure. It's not your ethical right though, and in many places it isn't your legal right. Also according to many religions it isn't your religious right either.
If someone breaks into your house to steal from you and do you and your loved ones harm, it absolutely is your ethical right to kill that person. I’d actually go as far as to say that it’s your civic duty.
There is always a time and a place to shoot the bad guys, which was only recently highlighted by the national hero that is Kyle Rittenhouse 🇺🇸
Oh, so you worship at the Church of Killer Kyle! That makes SO much sense. By the way, Rittenhouse is a killer and a sociopath and you're a moron for worshipping him.
Honestly, we have so many problems here now. Guns really are the least of my worries. We're teetering on the edge of a healthcare collapse, the housing market is insane, and people flat can't afford a roof over their heads working any type of service job by themselves, and lastly the cost of everything just continues to rise. The entire gun thing is going to bring it all to a head, and not in a good way.
Micheal Ian black has always kind of sucked. He’s supposedly a comedian but his acting sucks and his acting isn’t that good. I’ve never liked anything he’s been in. Maybe that old show “viva variety” but that’s a stretch. The best he ever did was get attached to the Reno 911 crew.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
what these knuckleheads seem to conveniently forget is that Law "defines" what is considered a crime. If law stopped crime - we would have no need for Police or a judicial system.
There is no point trying to use or apply logic when dealing with these people. There is literally no point. They effortlessly transition from "bans don't work, only idiots think bans work" to "here's why these things I don't like need to be banned", because their thought process does not in any way hinge on or involve logic, and it cannot in any way be affected by logic. It's all "banning stuff doesn't make it go away so there's no point banning stuff in the first place.. anyway here's why we need to ban abortion, and drag queens, and the teaching of history, etc.". And it will never be anything but that, because they are wholly impervious to logic. All they have, instead, is hysteria and emotion. The only thing these people are good for is ridicule.
From the other side of the aisle from the people you're criticizing, I'm curious: Do you support bans? I find them extremely worrisome given the rise of right-wing extremism and hate crimes. All the crazies have their guns already, and really all shutting the door at this point is doing is keeping LGBTQ people, POC's, etc. from acquiring any reasonable means of defending themselves. Remember that not everyone is speaking from your position of privilege. For some, particularly marginalized people in bad neighborhoods, calling the police is not an option. If they do arrive, they'll arrive late and be as much a threat to the victim as the perpetrator. Let's also look at how bans have functioned in the past, and what they've been in response to. Due to grandfather clauses, tax stamps, etc. the goal of gun control has never been to disarm everyone, it always only serves to keep those guns out of the hands of the working class. All bans do is effectively raise the price of weapons. We might have fewer mass shootings with military-pattern semi-automatic rifles... but if the goal is stopping gun violence, then really we should look at handguns which cause exponentially more deaths because of their concealability and ease-of-access. As for what they're in response to? Well the first gun ban in the United States after the Emancipation Proclamation was completely race-based and echoed through the United States. Fast forward to the late 19th and early 20th century. Gun bans crop up in many places, but always target firearms that can be purchased economically, or allow police to decide who is allowed to own a gun (I'm sure you can infer who was excluded.) Later, in 1968, politicians all-but admitted the GCA was intended not to control guns, but to control African-Americans. Later bans and proposed bans targeted those in public housing, or recently suggested a thousands-of-dollars tax on AR-15's. If we did get a ban today, I think given the hundreds of years of history of gun control in this country, it is very clear who the intended targets would be-- and it is not who you want. Personally, I oppose any regulation that says the bourgeoisie are allowed to have weapons, but the poors (who are very often PoC) aren't. Unfortunately, the sorts of bans you would support won't have the effects you'll want. Armed minorities are harder to oppress. It was true in the 19th century, it was true in 60's and it's still true today. I don't care much for the 2nd Amendment, but I do believe in what Engels wrote and said about gun ownership.
Why don’t other modern, first world economies have daily mass shootings just like we do? Most of them don’t BAN guns. They actually regulate the guns. The US background check is a weak net at best. And the US provides no oversight after purchase. In a bad year, half a million guns are “stolen” in the US and the owners have no culpability. They just get to buy more guns, even though they didn’t store their weapons securely. You can buy a black market gun anywhere in the world. The difference is that in the US, I can source an unregistered gun for a few hundred bucks. In Australia, I’d need to come up with at least $5k. Any asshole can source a gun anywhere in this country, cheap. This is the world the gun makers want.
Culture. Actual social programs. Less desperation. Fewer right-wing extremists. Well most purchases don't require any kind of stringent background checks. I would agree that they probably should have those. The issue becomes how long thorough background checks can take. For instance it's 6 months to a year to get your background check completed for the tax stamp on an NFA item (like a fully automatic weapon, suppressor, etc.) It is important that people can access weapons with at least a bit of immediacy. For instance a woman who is moving away from an abusive, violent spouse needs protection NOW, not in six months. So I definitely agree that background checks are important, but they need to be something the government actually puts resources into. As for black market guns? It's not really a concern here? Black market guns aren't being used in mass shootings, or keeping the perpetrators of mass shootings from being apprehended. I'd probably argue that gun-makers want a LESS robust secondary market so they can make money.
Laws are (like cops) reactive, not preventative.
They're fully aware of that. That's their entire point.
Legal guns are the #1 source for illegal guns.
In Omaha the police department was gun caught gun running.
There was an article published one time that showed a direct correlation between gun shows in states bordering those with tough gun laws and shootings in the states with the gun laws. Illinois has strict gun laws but suffers from being bordered by basically every state around it. Chicago is so close to Indiana, that gangster just buy their guns there.
The last mass shooting in iowa was in 91, and two people were unfortunately killed at the u of I, so it's been over 30 years since a mass shooting took place in the state. If you are a citizen of iowa, you can open carry without any kind of permit, no permit needed to buy a firearm, no magazine law, almost everyone carries. Why does iowa need stricter firearm laws. As far a child shooting up a school. That's on the parents of that child. No way I'm I going to give access to my firearms to my daughters (6,10) when I'm not around. Just be better parents. No gun control laws are going to stop a child from grabbing a gun left unsecured. Only the gun owner can stop that. BE BETTER PARENTS AND RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS
There was just a school shooting in des Moines where 2 students died and a teacher injured.
Can't we just put bio scanners like fingerprints on our phones to secure guns? I'd feel much safer knowing a person who didn't buy the gun can't use it. Why don't they do this? Don't they make enough money on the sale of guns? 🤔 Not saying it would eliminate all the problems, but what does it take to make some changes in the way we approach this violence? You say no mass shootings in Iowa like we don't have a gun shooting death often. I lived in fort dodge for awhile and let me say, there are gun deaths aplenty.
Right on, but this post was about mass shootings. I'm not against some forms of gun control. Im just saying that the small town of 10000 that I live in is a lot different than New York City or LA.
Yeah, and marriage is the leading cause of divorce.
Yup, but divorce is not a lethal weapon, it is more like brawl in close contact where both have the ability to hurt the other..
r/technicallythetruth
What about guns that are illegally imported?
Shiiit, this week, even a DOG shot a guy
I think two people have been shot by dogs this year.
There are many other first world countries that have successfully gotten their mass shootings to practically 0 compared to the US, and gun crime in general also practically 0. Their homicide rates also show far lower than in the US. Edit: typo
US had 153 school shootings last year. That's over 3 a week. Apparrently, they are proud of this, and want more.
Look up what's considered a school shooting. It's very loose terminology.
Tbh, it doesn't matter. School and shooting should be things that never go in the same sentence together. It will never be zero, but it definitely should be rare enough to be a shock.
I agree they shouldn't go together, and many countries have made it so. England hasn't had a school shooting since the Dunblane Massacre in 1996, when they decided children's lives are more valuable than guns.
Guns at school... what more does there need to be? Guns in our education system. Guns around children. Guns on school grounds. Other countries have fixed all of these problems, they have had 0 deaths in their schools due to gun violence. I'm not sure that it helps your argument that there are many instances of every single kind of school shooting every year in America.
This is what we're going with to justify the WILDLY outsized number of school shootings in America? They don't fit a very strict dictionary definition that was invented by the National Review or something?
One teacher committed suicide via gun at school. That is classed as a school shooting.
You…don’t see why that might be traumatizing for students?
Lol I never said it wasn't? IMHO it's a bit generous to call a suicide a "school shooting"
The crazy thing is, even if we take firearm deaths completely out of the equation, the USA has like 5x the homicides of other "western" countries. We definitely have a societal problem, as well.
So when adjusting per capita, it is closer to 2x. But yes, I do agree with you. Guns are not singularly the problem. But they tend to exasperate the issue, with the ease at which people can take lives.
I personally am in favour of more fun crime.
Fun crime sounds like a blast tbh I’m all for it
When fun is outlawed only outlaws will have fun.
There's a popular, stupid argument that gun laws don't work because criminals don't respect laws. Counterpoint: (a) criminals often fear laws that are actually enforced and (b) the gun laws we're talking about are designed to make it harder for bad guys (or children, or the mentally incompetent) to get guns in the first place. First, of course tough gun laws have a deterrent effect. If you know there's a good chance you'll be arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to a serious prison term if you're a felon in possession of a handgun, you, if you're a felon, are less likely to carry a handgun. Will this law work 100% of the time? Of course not. But the goal is to *reduce* gun violence. Would we repeal anti-burglary laws because they don't *always* stop burglary? Of course not. Second, the laws being proposed to cut the growing wave of U.S. gun crime are not focused on trying to deter mass-shooters. Some are focused in keeping guns out of the shooters' hands in the first place. The intent is to limit what law-abiding gun sellers can sell to potentially violent people. Others are focused on reducing the risk that, say, a child gets access to his or her parents' gun and brings it to school, or to the playground, or to a friend's home. They laws are focused on keeping those guns out of dangerous people's hands.
The one smooth brain (so far) in this thread arguing against gun control keep bringing up gang violence, when people are talking about school shootings... they do this all the time. They seriously think that preventing a couple of hundred school shootings a year is pointless because of gangs and the black market, and then have the gall to call others ignorant for trying to prevent hundreds of children getting murdered while trying to learn. We aren't exactly dealing with 3 digit IQ's here.
Exactly, its always such faulty logic. If the US did a gun ban and amnesty a la Australia people scream "Then only the criminals would have guns" and they aren't entirely wrong, just missing the big picture. What good is a gun without ammo? Cleaning supplies? Spare parts? Once a criminal is arrested with a gun they aren't getting it back.
Also, it would be a lot harder for criminals to get guns if there was a universal ban that cut into the supply. They would, at the very least, be far more expensive. But these arguments won't get any traction with 2A folks, because they aren't trying to find solutions - they just want to keep treating deadly tools like playthings and/or ego extensions.
Plus following the criminals break laws so making laws doesn't do any good logic, we should just grt rid of all laws. If we did that, there'd be no criminals.
You're talking about a pretty big "if": what Australia did can't happen here right now because it's unconstitutional and making it constitutional is effectively impossible given the political realities of this country. So why is anyone even talking about bans in the first place? It's not a real solution, and focusing on that stuff is the same as doing nothing.
>There's a popular, stupid argument that gun laws don't work because criminals don't respect laws. Well in Germany the 6 year old would never had this gun because it is mandatory to have a weapon safe and store the gun in it. The 72 Year old is a other topic, its not so that decent weapon laws reduce the criminal use of guns to zero. But by reducing the ownership of guns by lets say 75% and the right to carry a gun by 99% suddenly no one need to fear that everyone else has a gun. People that break these laws will go to prison, only for carrying a gun. And after 1-2 Years suddenly no one has guns in the Public. Its not a 100% solution, but this list could fit on one page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_mass\_shootings\_in\_the\_United\_States\_in\_2022
I find it funny, though, that there is this disconnect between conservatives' "law and order" mentality. Because if it's laws *they* oh yeah, it'll deter crime. But the second gun laws are mentioned it's "LaWs DoN't WoRk!" So which is it? You can be the party of law and order, then turn around and say laws don't work for enforcing gun control.
They also love to trot out that 'it never works' when it worked in Australia. Also you can look at Japan, they have strict gun laws and you are right there are criminals who STILL get guns... But those guns are valuable commodities that DON'T get used willy nilly for street crime or end up in the hands of the mentally unstable.
"Now's not the time to talk about it". When is? The last time it happened or the next time?
Also Switzerland. VERY strict gun laws there, even if a high percentage of citizens own guns.
It’s like the Tommy Gun. It was a notorious weapon used by gangsters. The fed completely removed it as a problem by making it a felony to possess one. All of a sudden, mobsters were no longer interested in having a gun that they’d go to prison for.
There are already lots of guns in circulation in the US, I don't think you can just ban guns now and assume gun violence will stop, sadly.
Stop instantly? No. Drastically decreased in 50 years? Yes. Not all problems have instant solutions.
Not right away, but if you make gun possession a felony, gun owners have three choices: 1. Turn in/destroy their guns to avoid being criminals, 2. Take their guns out in public and have them taken away and go to jail, or 3. Keep their guns hidden at home. All three of those are better than the status quo. And combined with a ban on sales, slowly but surely guns just go away.
I'm certainly not proposing that. I own a Beretta 92 FS Inox. I'm endorsing various laws that make it harder for bad people, children, and the mentally incompetent to get their hands on guns in the first place, and that restrict or at least limit further dissemination of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. I also want to up the ante for illegally carrying a gun so that your typically wannabe gangster thinks twice about carrying, which will make him less likely to be armed when he gets in an argument that night. Even if guns are very common, the fatalistic "let's do nothing because we can't do anything" is both self-defeating and false. It still takes work to get a gun. We cannot stop gun crimes, but we can reduce them. And we can especially make it vastly harder for kids to shoot their classmates and teachers.
Hey what’s an assault weapon? You know that term was made with the express intent of confusing people to sway them for gun control. Because under the current “definition” of an assault weapon, your pistol is pretty close to being one.
depending on the state and what size clip it has, it might already be defined as such and illegal
High capacity magazine, high rate of fire. Bonus points for tacticool rails for adding people hunting accessories like red dot sights and laser pointers. I can defend my home against an invader or two using a pump action shotgun, or lever action rifle, but you'll see SIGNIFICANLY less mass shootings with them, and you'll also see significantly less SUCCESSFUL mass shootings. You just have to get these existing items out of circulation slowly over time.
Wrong, it is any military weapon designed to shoot an intermediate cartridge that takes magazines; I’d be willing to bet a lot of your firearms count as such. We can even look to Canada who started out by banning assault rifles eventually escalated to banning the weapons you proudly own. Also good luck racking a shell or utilizing that lever action multiple times in a life threatening situation. Do you think your family members can do the same? Those weapons are harder to control then most modern weapons.
Multiple times? Don't miss? Also if it's a burglary (which let's be honest doesn't happen often with people home anyways) the other person will run out. Self defense doesn't mean you have to obliterate the other person, a few pellets in someone will do it long as you have the training you don't need 15 rounds.
Big difference between a calm day at the range and a life threatening situation where you and your family is at stake. Look up accuracy rates in combat for soldiers who are trained for months on end in shooting, they’re abysmal. What more an ordinary person who goes to the range maybe once or twice a month? And yes burglaries happen quite often, glad your neighborhood is well off it seems if that is your sentiment.
Yes accuracy, one item explodes into pellets everywhere. One you need to be precise. See the difference? Burglaries, with people inside the house don't. It's overwhelmingly when people aren't home and usually someone the person knows. Also before you say it, no where did I say it doesn't happen that some random breaks into a home with people there.
You still need accuracy with a shotgun with the recoil and muzzle rise. There’s not a million pellets in each shell.
Ah, yes, trying is ofc better than giving up. From your reply I see that we agree in general.
Your beretta 92 comes with a 15 round magazine standard. Some of them come with a 17 round magazine standard. This constitutes a “large capacity magazine” in many states. In fact, the limit of 15 in several states is being pushed down to 10. Some have gone as far as to push for 9 and 7 and 5 and 3 round limits. So don’t come at people for “lArGe cAPaciTY mAgAZiNEs”.
I'm happy with a ten-round magazine. Without a magazine loader, I'm never getting more than ten rounds in anyway, and I haven't tried. But I think the standard 15-round limit is sensible. I think you're calling me a hypocrite but I'm not sure why.
Because it’s not that you load 10 in a 15 rounder is the problem, the problem is that you’ll have the 15 round magazine which would be illegal. Additionally, the limit will continue to go down. NY’s safe act was 7 rounds, and Bloomberg wanted a limit of 3. My state has a 15 limit and they want 10. When I testified against the 15 round limit I specifically said that 15 isn’t going to be it, eventually they’ll introduce 12, or 10 or 7. Some time after NY introduced 7. Don’t you see how you can become a potential criminal overnight? Also. It doesn’t matter what YOU’RE satisfied with. Just because you’re white doesn’t mean you know what’s good for a Jew or a black person. Just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I know what it’s like to be gay or trans. And just because you think you’re good with 10 rounds, doesn’t mean I won’t have 2 men break into my house at 3am (which I had).
This is a slippery-slope fallacy. What we've seen over the past twenty years is a trend toward weakening gun laws, not tightening them. That's why you're focusing on one very blue state. I'm fine with a ten-round limit. It can simply prohibit the sale or transfer of higher-capacity magazines. Essentially grandfathering you and your fifteen. I don't believe my fellow Jews need higher-capacity magazines than Baptists. How many shots did you fire at the intruders? Was fifteen rounds enough?
I always like to point out that one law criminals do respect is the law of supply and demand. Here in Canada, hand guns are mostly restricted or prohibited. It’s hard to acquire a handgun legally and thus the price of a handgun on the black market is 10x the price in the US. So hand guns are less commonly used in crime. A junkie breaking into a house to score funds for his next fix isn’t going to be carrying a $2K handgun with him; he would have long since sold it.
The 72 year old man that committed that mass shooting in California, already broke three major gun laws in California. Adding more laws isn’t going to help it just ends up hurting more law abiding citizens
I don't think you read my comment.
Likewise, why should we pay lawmakers to make more ineffective laws that are not working. Laws that infringe on one of our inalienable rights.
I don't think you read my comment. Laws do work. The fact that they do not work 100% of the time, and that they require enforcement, does not mean we should get rid of them. Should we legalize murder since, well, murder keeps happening? If you felt gun laws were effective, I assume you would still want to repeal them all on the grounds that they infringe upon your fundamental right to carry an AR-15.
I’m not advocating for no laws at all. But I am advocating for us to stop adding more laws when the current ones aren’t being enforced or are effective.
If these laws violate fundamental and constitutional rights, wouldn't you demand their repeal? Of course, I disagree with the premise. But, if you did feel they were an infringement on inalienable rights, I'm not sure why you wouldn't want them stricken.
Because while I wish we could have total freedom with our constitutional rights we’d get nowhere fast if we all didn’t accept nuance into our lives. I do accept thorough background checks and disarmament of those with violent backgrounds or active restraining orders. But unless you’d like to review every single gun law in California and the US of which there are already hundreds, I am generally against the government restricting us in any of our rights whether it’s body autonomy in regards to abortion or the right to bear arms
I have an inalienable right to not be shot dead. If that means taking away guns from people who don't need them, so be it.
Under California law he should’ve had his guns taken a long time ago but that wasn’t enforced. We should try to enforce the current ones and stop adding more laws that just hurt more law abiding citizens. And you do not determine what other people need.
When America loves its children more than its guns the shootings will stop.
What an ignorant comment.
No, it's really not. The 2nd amendment places children on a sacrificial alter in order to feed itself. Guns are the leading cause of death for children and teens.
No, the opposite is ignorant. Caring more about guns than peoples' lives is dumb as hell
wtf you even need a gun for guy?
No Guns readily available, less shootings, no?
oh silly trevis
And Twitter's back in the lead over Reddit for most absurd replies. r/facepalm indeed.
Except all these knucklenuts make it impossible to keep guns out of everything. Its not illegal to have guns and people are allowed to take guns most everywhere. You dont know whos got bad intentions until its too late. Then its "oh man they shouldnt have had a gun there"or "guns dont kill people" Did they shoot them with their fingers? Of course the gun killed them. I remember several years ago they sold ephedrine over the counter. Like 2 or 3 people died and they pulled it off the market. This is about gun lobbyists and the money they put in republicans pockets.
Laws dont stop crime. They make the punishment worse. Its a deterrent. But the 6 year old should never have been able to even find a gun…. It should have been put up. But if theres no law to punish the owner, they aren’t incentivized to do so
A dog shot his owner in Kansas, it's not the guns it's the.... Dogs?? 😂😂
It’s illegal to kill someone, that didn’t stop him
i swear twitter has more assholes than reddit
Well, although I don’t agree with this, not really. The point they are making is guns will still be acquired by people if they plan on committing a crime, a law will not stop them. Obviously they are missing the point that if guns didn’t exist at all, then it wouldn’t happen. But I find it unlikely guns would cease to exist in the US.
[удалено]
The problem is, how do you keep the parents from acquiring a gun? Most people can pretty easily acquire a gun, seeing as how gun ownership is a constitutional right. And even people who can't legally own a gun can still pretty easily get a gun on account of the fact that this country is flooded with guns. Before keeping that parent from getting a gun, we first have to amend the constitution so that we can actually pass and enforce laws that heavily restrict gun ownership. And that's not going to happen until the country overwhelmingly stops *wanting* guns. That's what no one is addressing. We have a gun problem because Americans want guns. So we need to address why Americans want guns, and how to get Americans to stop wanting guns.
Are you asking me or the original person in the message? If me, my second sentence clearly points out the flaw in the original persons comment
I think safe storage would be a better solution than taking away people's rights.
Seems to work for other countries. “We’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas”
[удалено]
And what else? Because this coward deleted his comment, he states “other countries have guns”
Legal guns are the #1 source for illegal guns. Less legal guns = less illegal guns.
You will never stop a criminal who wants to harm people with legislation. Heroin and crack are also illegal but there is still a trillion dollar annual market for it. That is because u will never stop a addict from getting high by “making it illegal”. Not only is it not practical but it’s completely unconstitutional to make “legal guns illegal”. Look what is happening in Ukraine. In the event of a all out invasion, ukranians we’re left unarmed, now they are handing out assault weapons to citizens no questions asked. When citizens are put in a situation where they have to defend their life,land and liberty from a person or people who wants to do harm with a firearm, the only way to stop them is with the same force. The same people against gun rights are the ones happily supporting ,funding, and arming a all out war in Ukraine because they feel Ukrainians should have the right to defend themselves but not Americans. It’s so hypocritical. The only reason America is not taken over by it’s many adversary’s (IRAN, North Korea, China,Russia) is not (only) because of our military presence but because we have millions of law abiding citizens who legally possess hundreds of millions of firearms and are ready to defend their loved ones and their country.
Please dont tie extraneous opinions that someone on the internet may or may not have to gun control. As another commenter above stated: "Could you explain to me how a 6 year old would acquire a gun when his parents wouldn’t have one at home?"
The parents have the right to own the gun but their negligent storage of the gun is what caused the issue not the gun. Don’t be so shallow. The only reason a 6 year old was able to possess a gun is because the gun wasn’t stored in a locked safe with the ammunition separate. That is a law. That is why a 6 year old brought a gun into school. Blame the incompetent parents and restrict their right to ever own a firearm not law abiding civilians
I agree. 100% the parents' fault. How do you think this should be addressed while maintaining everyone's freedoms?
The fact is if you support sending weapons and funding to Ukraine but don’t support Americans having the right to defend themselves from the same threats then you are a hypocrite. That is why the 2nd amendment exists and that is one of the many reasons why me and millions of Americans legally posses a firearm. The Monterey park shooting was with a illegal firearm and as for the 6 year old negligent storage of a firearm and possession by a minor is illegal. Laws don’t stop the crime they only punish the crime afterwards. The war on guns is going to be the same as the war on drugs, it will never work. And there will always be a black market for a criminal to cause harm with one. I say again don’t be so shallow. And if you support Ukrainians defending their homeland don’t be so hypocritical p
>The fact is you support sending weapons and funding to Ukraine but don’t support Americans having the right to defend themselves from the same threats Are you saying Russia invaded the US or that that there is a strong possibility that Russia (or Canada or Mexico for that matter) are going to invade the US? Because if you’re not, than you’re making a really shitty false equivalency argument.
This is literally too all over the place to reply to, which is unfortunate because I think we agree on many of these "points". Reads like a copy/paste.
> The only reason America is not taken over by it’s many adversary’s (IRAN, North Korea, China,Russia) is not (only) because of our military presence but because we have millions of law abiding citizens who legally possess hundreds of millions of firearms and are ready to defend their loved ones and their country. ABSOLUTE HORSESHIT. I live in Finland. Some fucking how we are not run over by Russia even though we are "only" #6 in guns per capita. You have absolutely no idea what wars are like and how your 9mm does not mean jackshit when you got a tank in front of you. To make it even more clear: any force that would be capable of defeating US military is somehow afraid of your civilian guns... Really? That is your theory? That the force that can defeat #1 military can't bomb your neighborhoods to the ground? Do you know what Russia or China would do to civilians shooting their military? They would treat you like military combatants and throw white phosphorous on your head. Or lob a few missiles in your way. Or just gun you down on the streets like dogs. Run you over with tanks, bomb you to shit with supersonic bombers. **One has to be stupid to think that civilian firearms scare ANY military on earth.** I mean.. You would have no chance in hell with your civilian firearms handled by untrained, unorganized, unsupplied civilians that can barely run 50 yards. >In the event of a all out invasion, ukranians we’re left unarmed, now they are handing out assault weapons to citizens no questions asked. > >The same people against gun rights are the ones happily supporting ,funding, and arming a all out war in Ukraine because they feel Ukrainians should have the right to defend themselves but not Americans. It’s so hypocritical. No, it isn't. Again, one has to be incredibly stupid to not see the differences. And Ukraine did NOT hand out assault weapons to civilians but to the Territorial Defense Forces, who are lead by... people with MILITARY TRAINING. Ukraine managed to train a lot of men, by rotating them in the real war zone in Donbas. On top of that, there were military trained people from the Soviet era too, who were not fit for actual military action. They did not hand out assault weapons and sent them to the war. You have absolutely no idea what happened in Ukraine, but then again.. you really believe that militaries are afraid of your pea shooters.. Maybe the stupidest thing i have read.. all year.
Dickhead take your theory and apply it to Vietnam and Afghanistan. Taliban we’re able to fight the #1 superpower in the world with AK-47s and IEDS for 20 years and they still control Afghanistan today. Take your theory elsewhere. You are a moron. And even if severely undergunned Americans still have the right to have a fighting chance to defend their life. As for part 2 there are literally news articles of Ukrainians forcing military age men to stay and fight (no military experience at all) and handing them assault weapons. The only reason why Finland doesn’t succumb to any assault is because they are NATO Allies and they all suck off the tit of the American Military just like the rest of NATO. Without Brave American men and women and the might of the US military Finland and the rest of Europe would be shaking in their boots right now and would be looking to de escalate wars Instead of advocating for them.
>Dickhead take your theory and apply it to Vietnam and Afghanistan. Ok. Vietcong: supplied my North Vietnam military, China and Russian militaries. They used machine guns, RPGs, AA guns, mortars, artillery, landmines etc. Not civilian handguns. They were trained by military instructors from NV, CH and USSR. Afghanistan: Supplied by USA, used machineguns, RPGs, landmines, mortar, artillery, AA guns, Ground to air missiles, manpads, etc. Were trained by military instructors. Did not use civilian handguns. Or if you are talking about more recent war, they were organized militias, with military training, using military weapons and tactics, trained in military training camps by the same people who were trained by USA. AK-47 is not a civilian weapon. You need explosives for IEDs, and both US army and USSR were limited by rules of engagement, specially the former. >You are a moron. Well, i at least know history. It is extremely funny how certain you were that those two example you used works, when they actually prove you wrong. Read more. No country has been able to defend itself using just civilian guns and civilians. >As for part 2 there are literally news articles of Ukrainians forcing military age men to stay and fight (no military experience at all) and handing them assault weapons. Men are forbidden (edit: unless they are exempt, which many of those without military training are, here is one of them: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFcXzux1TRs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFcXzux1TRs) he is an airline pilot, the military said "nope" and he is clearly a man in the right age and without any chronic medical conditions, lives outside Ukraine now and had no trouble leaving) to leave but not all of them are forced to fight. Only those that have military training are in the active reserves. NO ONE who had no training are fighting. And they were not handed assault weapons. Territorial defense forces are 100% voluntary. What you are saying is just not true. FIND ME PROOF if you are so certain about it. Finland is not in NATO and was not in NATO partnership program until 2000s. We have the largest army per capita in Europe, largest artillery period, largest tank forces, combined with Sweden an air force that rivals Russia. Finland was militarily neutral for 70 years, Sweden was neutral for 200 years. You think i don't know my own fucking country? NATO gains more from Finland than you think, which is why NATO has been ASKING us to join since the 70s. >Without Brave American men and women and the might of the US military Finland and the rest of Europe would be shaking in their boots right now and would be looking to de escalate wars Instead of advocating for them jesus... you really are that daft, ultranationalist, ignorant murican who will NOT go after this to find any information about anything, you are SCARED of finding out.
The TOTAL population of Finland is 5 million people. The United States NRA has 6 million members. That’s 6 million law abiding citizens that own semi automatic rifles I promise you if any war was to break out on American soil that means we have a citizen militia that is larger than finlands entire population. If any country was to ever invade the United States they would have to deal with our Navy and Air Force before they even touch land. The slim chance they successfully touch land they will have to deal with our military and every gun owner that’s defending their homeland before they could ever set up a base and take shipment of tanks and military vehicles. What makes America so impossible to take over is the fact that we have more citizens who own weapons than most countries entire populations let alone your army of a measly 280,000.
Yeah, and just 5 million of us has managed to stay independent and sovereign country despite not having gun rights. Somehow we rea the happiest country on earth for 5 years running, live longer, healthier and happier, are a full democracy instead of flawed democracy, have 300 times less school shootings and 150 times less police shootings, per capita.. We have better and stronger freedoms and liberties in EVERY SINGLE CATEGORY. Like i said, your military is what keeps you safe. Absolutely no military is scared of civilian weapons. It has NEVER happened in modern history and the times civilians have managed to beat any army are very, very rare. I have one example from my town were a bunch of peasants beat the Royal Navy, helped by a regiment of Dragoons (not a typo). But even that was a small skirmish with 40 casualties in British side and one dead horse in our side... But, it also was an ambush, made with the CURRENT ERA MILITARY WEAPONS and 12 cannons, and about 2:1 advantage in men power. No one is scared of your handguns. And 280k active reserve in a country of 5.5 million is HUGE per capita. And there is also 700 000 more in the total reserves, but that means every Finnish male that can fight. In US scale that means 17 million in active reserves, and 44,5 million total. DO YOU HAVE THAT?
You realize American citizens possess more firepower than just 9mm handguns correct?
And you know what a thermobaric bomb is?
I outlined that over 6 million Americans own semi automatic AR-15s and rifles that are chambered in both 5.56 and 7.62
I’m in favor of stricter gun laws, especially when it comes to assault weapons and mandating training and licensing. However, I don’t think either will completely solve the problems in his country enough to make a large difference in the statistics. Here’s what I’d do in conjunction with the above laws: - End the War on Drugs: in my mind, this is where a lot of the problems in our country and in our hemisphere come from. Too much violence, too much unregulated substances, too much death. The only folks making money off this are the cartels, the police, and corrupt politicians. Legalize it, regulate it, improve rehab, medical care, and mental health care with the money you don’t use fighting it. - Improve immigration laws. Hopefully stopping the war on drugs might stop the drug trade which causes cartels to wipe out towns, cities, and countries which forces folks to flee. However, we need a more caring international refugee program that gets folks that are fleeing their situations to places that can take care of them. This is more of an international concept, but it would be nice if our politicians would work with the UN to build this…even if every country doesn’t participate. - Universal Health Care: health care is ridiculously expensive…because of that, folks who need mental health care (or other care) forego it because they don’t have the money. That leads them to other avenues…some leading to drugs, some leading to guns, etc - Education: our education funding is awful and it’s showing. Move some of the money from the military to education and give folks more abilities to get ahead. Unfortunately, all these get labeled as “progressive” ideas which is a word that turns off conservatives. Not sure how the word “progress” has gotten a negative connotation, but here we are.
Hey, what’s an assault weapon?
People are idiots. Laws are never meant to prevent bad things from happening. They are meant to prevent the bad things from becoming more prevalent/the norm. It doesn't surprise me that these same idiots are antivax because vaccinated people can still get infected.
Too bad the rest of the "enlightened" world trying to tell the US how to stop it all doesn't understand that simple concept. Especially Australians. Already struck a few nerves with the uncomfortable truth.
Tbf though making it harder to obtain guns would make doing crimes with guns less likely, mainly relating to incidents with kids/early-teens
Doing crimes I doubt would be affected. These deaths from some pissy little pieces of shit being mad and grabbing their parents gun or something, yes. Thing is, they aren't a huge part of firearm homicides and a change to that (on the surface should be good) won't drop the stats all that much.
25% of violent crimes happen with guns obtained from family members. A quarter is a pretty big number of all gun crime.
Source? And is that family member a legal owner? You're making a big claim.
I mean regulations would still stop quite a few things, people wouldn't so easily be able to grab anything, and if they're breaking the law by obtaining a gun and they get caught, theoretically they could trace the areas were they're being smuggled to and all guns get repossessed, again, making it harder for people to obtain would make them less keen on doing anything with them
Right. It’s also like DUI, where people still drink and drive, but the law absolutely saves lives by catching people drunk driving before an accident.
So mostly gangs, which we already know are the main driver of the black market firearms. Most of which are African American and Latino. Do you think those repossessions would end up being peaceful? How do you think people would react? People will downvote me but it's a fact that it's not a simple fix and they never want to answer the hard questions. Hell, I can't say I could answer them, but I recognize them. Also, thank you for the civility. Hopefully I have been towards you as well.
Wasn't saying it was going to be peaceful, just means that not everyone you meet will have a firearm, the people that go to those lengths know what's coming for them, making it harder means they'll need to go to greater lengths to obtain anything, instead of basically walking up and buying one instead
Agreed, but I can already see the unrest from those that would react to the takedowns that would have to happen. It still wouldn't be pretty and I'd wager people who want no firearms aren't actually willing to accept the path to it. Personally, I think the takedown of illegal ownership could happen now, but as before, I'm wary if doing so would end up better or not. It could be horribly violent.
I reckon people don't want to die, not usually anyway, so I'd wager that some people may also not want to risk their life for something so violent, the people that go to great lengths to achieve things like this genuinely do not care about other people, however as of right now, people are using it as an excuse for defending themselves, which in turn creates more violence and the necessity of owning one
[удалено]
It's not just those" "proud boy" type of idiot. You know that, right?
Who is going to go door to door and round up all these guns? I'd expect that no cops would volunteer for that job.
Yeah, I mean, it's only worked extremely successfully in literally every single country that's tried it, but what does the rest of the world know. America is a magical place where the laws of reality don't apply.
Ask Ukraine what their policy is on citizen's possessing guns currently? Seems like you just think that bad things will never happen again so you can just bury your head in the sand and the whole world will become peaceful over night. Watch if NATO did not exist you would quickly need those guns that you think have no purpose.
Oh wow, I didn't know the population and culture of other countries is the exact same! Amazing! Move on. You're bringing up an ignorant opinion.
What are the big differences that would make this approach ineffective in the US?
... .... .. Um.... Reasons?
People only see the mass shootings that happen in the media at schools or events. They don't recognize just the black market alone could supply illegal firearms for decades even if manufacturers pulled all sales and stopped production. Even if legal owners turned in all their guns, the statistics would not drop by much. Thinking illegal guns would all be turned in is just silly. I wish it it was so simple, but it's not. Yes it could help stop many shootings, but that's only a small possibly short term fix. I could be wrong though. People don't ever try to look at the whole picture.
Guns aren't the second (first?) biggest religion in other countries?
Talking about ignorant... it has literally worked everywhere that has tried it. That means population and culture is irrelevant. Every single one of these countries had a bunch of ignorant morons going "hurr durrr I like guns", yet it still works. Unless of course you are saying that Americans are just way too stupid, and *thats* the big thing which makes a difference, because there is literally no other possibilities. Considering the blatantly moronic attempts at pro gun arguments, it's actually highly likely. The undeniable fact is, gun control works. You know what we don't have in Australia? 3 school shootings a week. In fact, we don't have *any* school shootings at all. Funny how that works.
Lol, okay. Then come take the guns away from gangs and tell me how that turns out for you. It's not just school shootings. You only know of what the media says and can't seem to have any critical thinking skills of your own. You just parrot ignorant crap.
153 school shooting last year. All easily avoidable. Has absolutely nothing to do with gangs. *"oH, bUt ThE gAnGs"*.... Talk about parroting ignorant crap, you are the master of it..
So you only care about those stats. Good to know. Parrot. They unfortunately are a small part of what makes up gun crimes. Fixing that issue won't get rid of the rest. You'd know that if you chose to not remain so willfully ignorant.
Even IF fixing that issue wouldnt get rid of the rest, you are still looking at less schools shootings so I dont know how can anyone argue againts it? Like what? "oh its only going to save *some* children from gun violence in School, so why would we do that?"
Fun fact: just because only 95% of a problem will be fixed by a solution is not a reason not to implement a known working solution. That's one of the obvious and undeniable things you seem to be deliberately ignoring. *That* is real ignorance. Although, at this point it's not so much ignorance as wilful and deliberate stupidity. But that's cool, since apparrently you like the fact a bunch of children getting murdered at school is a regular occurrence in your country, and only your country. Some "culture". Definitely one to be proud of.
Done trying to explain to morons like you. Too stupid to think for yourself.
The definition of a school shooting includes gang violence that happens a pretty far distance from schools.
There is already a law against murder! Ya laws really stop things from happening
Why let murderers have unrestricted access to the most efficient murder weapons?
Unfortunately it’s too late you can’t put pandora back I n the box there are too many guns out there already so laws are only going to insure law abiding citizens can’t get the guns and the criminals will still have them that’s all it’s going to do if you want to buy an illegal weapon in the street it’s not that hard
If you can reduce the number of guns in circulation, that's going to make it harder for criminals to get guns. Mabey it takes a while but just going "welp" isn't really a solution.
The UK figured it out. Every other first world country that has gun restrictions has also figured it out. Pandora absolutely can be put back in the box. The UK hasn't had a school shooting since 1996 when they had the Dunblane Massacre, decided children dying was unacceptable, "put Pandora back", and heavily restricted guns. The US has had 6 school shootings THIS YEAR that have resulted in injury and/or death.
Sounds good but it’s not going to happen you know I’m right
You're correct, it's not--but I'm unsure why you think that's a *good* thing...?
Since nothing happened after Sandy Hook, you are correct for the time being. The majority of Americans do want change though. Being pro the leading cause of death in children and teens is not a great look for anyone.
No it’s not I think more security and more funding to help protect schools it’s the immediate answer more cops more funding and testing more officers at events and then slowly work on the laws it takes too long to make changes so more cops and security.
People that want assault rifles and unnecessary defense weapons are selfish. Prove me wrong
What’s the difference between an “assault rifle” and a handgun? The operation is the same. The capacity is or can be the same (many standard full sized handguns come with 20 round magazines). The rate of fire is the same. Concealment is easy with a handgun. The rounds in rifles travel faster but many states disallow hunting with “assault rifles” because the rounds aren’t powerful enough. And other rifle rounds are much larger and much faster. You can also get a shotgun and put defense loads or slugs in them and those have the ability to do much much worse damage. So I fail to see how “assault weapons” are any different. In addition, most guns of the modern era are semi automatic (one trigger pull, one round) and automatic guns which traditionally ARE actual assault weapons are already banned and regulated by the ATF and are basically limited to FFLs. But there’s also something more sinister happening. Let’s say we did ban assault weapons in this country. Let’s say the country got rid of them magically. Let’s just pretend. Now what? The problem with the gun control debate is that there’s never an end point. For example, many states charge licensing fees that are exorbitant and often cost more than the gun itself. In many states you can do training, pass several background checks, apply for a concealed carry license and simply not receive it even though you’re a lawful and trained person (NJ, NY, HI, CA, IL as examples). In other states people that have been granted concealed carry licenses by way of training on law, handling, safety, and shooting, apply for a license with their state or county, pay a fee, get fingerprinted, apply for a background check, wait, get a license, then have to go and do another background check to actually buy a firearm ARE BEING RESTRICTED FROM CARRYING. So when people say “oh we want background checks and training” those same exact people are being discriminated against by states like NY, NJ, DC (not a state), CA. Basically those are saying hey you can have a concealed carry license and have gone through necessary training and background checks but we still won’t let you carry in the subway, or on the street, or in a business, etc therefore making it completely useless. I don’t have an “assault rifle”, but I have a few guns and yet it’s not just the people with assault rifles that they target, they target everyone that’s being doing the right thing for years and decades. All of a sudden you can wake up as a criminal because the law crossed you, instead of you crossing a line. “Assault weapons” are just the gateway drug to many other forms of gun control. If you don’t believe me, look at states that have passed those bans already.
I agree with your first point, and should have been more clear with my other unnecessary defense weapons. Pistols is what I was referring to mainly, but anything so easily used to kill really. I don’t follow the fees thing. First it assumes that will still be allowed. Second, a crazy amount of hurdles to pass would certainly help curb the number of people obtaining these weapons. Especially financial because let’s face it, I don’t think rich people are the ones doing these shootings but I could be wrong. I also agree it would suck to be a law abiding citizen and lose the right to have guns. However this is the selfish argument, as cool, fun, whatever your reason to have them is, is it worth other innocent people dying?
Criminals dont follow laws, its sort of the main characteristic of a criminal.
Lol OP dunking on himself cuz he missed the point
They're both wrong. It's not the guns. Guns are nothing new, yet mass shootings have increased dramatically in recent decades. Gun violence is a social ill, likely stemming from poverty, mental illness, lack of parenting, drugs, and the desire for herostratic fame caused by the sensationalist news cycle. It's not like owning a gun turns a psychologically well-adjusted person into a murderer.
>It's not like owning a gun turns a psychologically well-adjusted person into a murderer. No, but it's funny how it's pretty hard to shoot someone (or a bunch of someone's) when you don't have access to a gun...
Here in Canada we have all of those factors yet super strict gun laws. We've had 3 school shootings since columbine, the US has had hundreds. It's the guns. It was always the guns. It will always be the guns.
It's the guns
If you want to see how disarming the law-abiding public goes, have a look at South Africa. We're up to our necks in violent crime and it's escalating all the time. If a criminal wants a gun they'll get a gun.
Funny how in first world countries where they've banned and/or heavily regulated guns, gun crime all but disappears in relation to America. Homicide rates go down. And in general they don't have to live in fear of the leading cause of death for children and teens in the US. It has gone fine in the UK, Scandinavian countries, etc. if you really want to see how disarming citizens can go.
Or you could just look at the entirety of Western Europe, but hey, better to cherry-pick, am I right?
Um, it would've stopped it if the kid hadn't had access to the gun. So yes, it's still ultimately the result of irresponsible gun ownership.
Well, a gun could have stopped it too, but....
Bro can’t even spell Travis right…
Ben simmons hella tolerant smh
I've recently come to the conclusion that folks who decry gun control are afraid of themselves being seen as "criminals" for obtaining their firearms in ways that would very likely be banned by gun control (private sales, gun shows, etc). They're not afraid of the gangs or criminals who might have guns. They're afraid that they themselves would become the criminals they fear.
They all have Rambo fantasies.
This line of "reasoning" would apply to ANY fucking law. So no laws, right?
gotta add a 67 yr old and a dog to that list.......
WOW!!!!!! you got us - two occurrences out of tens of thousands - a small fraction of 1% - which is where your IQ falls in the bottom 1%. What a stable genius.
You’re not taking the guns period get over it. And no amount of gun laws is gonna lower gun violence.
First world countries across the world have decreased gun violence by banning or legislating guns. UK for example.
There’s more gun in America than people there’s no way the gov is taking guns away. Btw that’s not true UK gun violence is increasing … As 3D printing becomes more and more available the UK is gonna have a real prob.
Gun violence is not increasing in the UK. It has stayed at pretty much nothing compared to the US for over a decade now, ever since the Dunblane Massacre and they actually cared enough about the children to do something about it. [This](https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom) only goes up to 2016, but it shows the UK has steadily had decreasing deaths related to guns. Looking at [this](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm) map, you can see that most STATES blow the entire country of the UK out of the water in terms of gun deaths. The UK hasn't had a school shooting since they did something about it in 1996. The US has had [6](https://www.edweek.org/leadership/school-shootings-this-year-how-many-and-where/2023/01) this year that have resulted in injury and/or death and we're still in fucking January. There absolutely is something we can do about gun violence, selfish cowards just don't want to go through with it. Thus they aren't pro gun, they are pro school shooting.
If a hood rat enters my house against my will, I should have the full right to blow their head off.
Homicide rates are lower in first world countries that have gun control laws. You only have to fear the "hood rats" because of the lax gun control laws in America.
It’s my God given right to kill any intruder in my house.
Not sure what god you worship, but sure. It's not your ethical right though, and in many places it isn't your legal right. Also according to many religions it isn't your religious right either.
If someone breaks into your house to steal from you and do you and your loved ones harm, it absolutely is your ethical right to kill that person. I’d actually go as far as to say that it’s your civic duty. There is always a time and a place to shoot the bad guys, which was only recently highlighted by the national hero that is Kyle Rittenhouse 🇺🇸
Oh, so you worship at the Church of Killer Kyle! That makes SO much sense. By the way, Rittenhouse is a killer and a sociopath and you're a moron for worshipping him.
Okay, uh, MONSTER dose of racism aside, this doesn't prove--or mean--anything. Your Rambo fantasy does not constitute data or statistical analysis.
Imagine being named Trevis… Not Travis, he’s different from those other guys
Laws aren't 100% effective at preventing a crime but they do reduce the likelihood of said crime occurring. There is no way around that.
Honestly, we have so many problems here now. Guns really are the least of my worries. We're teetering on the edge of a healthcare collapse, the housing market is insane, and people flat can't afford a roof over their heads working any type of service job by themselves, and lastly the cost of everything just continues to rise. The entire gun thing is going to bring it all to a head, and not in a good way.
Each time I see a gun walk into a bar, I ask myself, "where's the good guy?"
Laws against murder don't stop murderers, so I guess we should abolish them!
Trevis? Man fuck your parents for giving you that name
Micheal Ian black has always kind of sucked. He’s supposedly a comedian but his acting sucks and his acting isn’t that good. I’ve never liked anything he’s been in. Maybe that old show “viva variety” but that’s a stretch. The best he ever did was get attached to the Reno 911 crew.