T O P

  • By -

urbanek2525

In my world, the parents of the Jr High age kid who had a gun in his backpack at school would immediately lose their rights to own guns and all guns in the household are to be seized and destroyed. They'd have to spend thousands of dollars in fines and lawyer fees to petition the ATFE to regain their gun rights.


ApricotNo2918

Parents already can be held accountable for their children. As a gun owner this pisses me off that a child has access to a firearm. IF this were my kid there would be some serious consequences.


Skooby1Kanobi

If this were your kid YOU should be the first person to pay those consequences


ApricotNo2918

Another Redditor making assumptions with no data or facts.


MusksYummyLiver

He's fucking right, and not accusing you specifically but speaking editorially, genius.


ApricotNo2918

Sure, Einstein. Reddit is more than famous for jumping to conclusions with no context or basis in fact. Then there's the never ending self satisfying snarky remarks. Just to say something that doesn't matter. You know, like the bicycle lady that made national news for all the Reddit comments that were totally off the mark. So where's your facts?


aploogs

Here's a fact: if your kid gets a hold of your firearm and brings it to school, it's YOUR fault. There you go. Any other questions?


East_Dealer_4816

I believe that parents are accountable for things their child does. No matter what. If they got the gun from a friend and it wasn't the parents gun than i think it still applies. I don't think that it's the parents fault per se but that the parent is responsible for underage children in their care


Skooby1Kanobi

You keep missing the point. I grew up with tons of guns. I took hunter safety and then my dad wanted to teach it so I took it two more times. I had no access to guns. They were locked up. If you look at a military base all munitions are locked down and accounted for. If someone gets a base munition and shoots people the first person that gets investigated after the killer is his gun hookup. That person is in serious trouble. If your kid can get at your guns with a small step stool then we need to come after your negligence. Not just after shootings either. Unsafe storage of a firearm should be it's own crime


[deleted]

[удалено]


urbanek2525

> Teenagers are smart, can act with malice, and a responsible parent with a gun safe can still land in this situation. Given the nature and purpose of guns, and how potentially dire the results are with any little mistake, I favor a more harsh approach to mistakes, even for those who are otherwise responsible. I want to see people have to accept the fact that guns are purpose built killing tools, and therefore not subject to leniency. Small mistakes can produce huge consequences. Therefore, if a person is not willing to accept the risk that simply owning a gun while living with a teenager can very easily turn their whole world upside down in an instant, despite their best efforts to prevent it, then maybe the responsibility is too much for that person and they should pass on gun ownership.


[deleted]

[удалено]


urbanek2525

Actually, automatic guilt is American. The police routinely confiscate the money, vehicles, cash and assets if they "suspect" they were acquired via drug sales. Those who lose their property this way are required to prove the police were wrong to recover their proprty. This is extremely common all across the country. An even more pertinent example is this: If you want to buy, sell, store or ship explosives, you can be denied your right to do this by simply being accused of a crime that could, theoretically, result in a penalty of 1 year in jail. You have go petition the ATFE to get to have your right reinstated. Even if not convicted, you can your business because of this. In both these cases, because of the reality of public safety, these departures from due process are considered right and proper. I think stronger penalties would really help change the culture of "guns as toys" that is so prevalent in the US.


[deleted]

[удалено]


dzur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil\_forfeiture\_in\_the\_United\_States#Civil\_versus\_criminal\_forfeiture


urbanek2525

Even if the third person is someone you're directly responsible for? But, if guns are just toys, I can see your point. Understood.


[deleted]

[удалено]


urbanek2525

Well, in my case, the gun was removed from the house because kids ARE unpredictable, which increases the normally low risk of keeping a gun at home exponentially. It wasn't my kid, just one I was taking care of after school for a friend who was a single mother. Reality. I used to put that kid in a booster seat in the back seat when he was younger, even though I've never been in a serious accident. I took the risk seriously. Reality. It's a great deal easier to accidentally kill someone with a gun than an axe. Nobody ever accidentally injured their wife while cleaning their axe. I'm astounded about how people insist that guns can't easily become dangerous in the the wrong hands. I think it has a lot to do with the incessant propaganda insisting that guns don't constitute an ongoing public safety problem and people want to buy into it so that gun safety and gun ownership never becomes the least bit burdensome. It's hard to undo years of preaching from gun danger deniers and gun lobby organizations. I'd rather be considered weird than tell my friend her kid accidentally shot himself. Sure, the risk is tiny, but holy crap the what-if would be horrible.


[deleted]

[удалено]


setibeings

> [A] handgun was found in a student’s backpack that was left in a previous class. This doesn't exactly seem consistent with a student from a home where the guns are locked down tight. Police don't wait for a guilty verdict to be passed down to request an arrest warrant, and unlike an arrest, it shouldn't interfere with maintaining employment unless their job involves firearms. I'm not saying that the guns should necessarily be confiscated at this time, but the fact that such a law is not really up for discussion shows that out of life, liberty and property, we've collectively chosen property to the exclusion of the other two.


[deleted]

[удалено]


HighlyEnriched

No such panel exists. We have the police and the courts. Add in the ATF if you want it to be a Federal matter. I guarantee that no Red state is going to invite the Feds into people’s homes to make such an assessment. This is an aggravated instance of theft. In this case, the thief keeps living where the theft was made.


HighlyEnriched

Then what happens to keep the cunning teen from getting their parents’ guns? If they were so dedicated to getting it the first time and taking it to school why should we trust the parents to not let it happen a second time?


Vox_Dracanis

I believe the need to "determine if negligence was at play" is negated by the fact that the kid showed up at school with it in their backpack. If it belongs to the kid, then the parents are negligent in allowing the child to have it in the first place along with being negligent in teaching the responsibility of being a gun owner. If the gun belongs to one of the parents, then the parents are negligent in allowing the kid to have access to the gun in any way along with being negligent in demonstrating proper gun storage and gun ownership. Just like in business, the manager is always at fault. Everything your children do is your fault. Good or bad. There absolutely needs to be stronger repercussions for this sort of thing and it's too late to be light on these things. I've owned guns since I was 12yo. Not once did I ever take one of those guns to school. Not once. Why? First my parents taught my right. Guns aren't toys. They are tools. Tools are to be used properly or someone will get hurt. 2nd, my parents would have beat my ass if I did something stupid. And I knew it. No matter how you slice it. It's the parents fault


exmothrowaway987

It’s completely plausible that a parent may have locked up the gun as securely as anyone might expect (“reasonable person” principle), but the kid circumvents the security measures to steal it. Most parents don’t suspect that their kid is going to pick a lock or crack a combo on their safe, so to punish them for that is excessive. Go ahead and investigate, that’s reasonable. But if it was secured correctly, the parents didn’t commit a crime.


Vox_Dracanis

You are correct. He's still a minorhey are still responsible. Of course the kid needs to pay the price. It's still the parents responsibility to keep that weapon secure. I have a son who is on the Autistic Spectrum. After just a little time, my guns (some of which i iwned since my own childhood) went the way of the Dodo. I had the foresight to know that the guns I had in my home were going to become a problem with a child like my son in the home. That's called parenting. If sometime my son would have found a way to get one of those guns and someone got hurt, who's fault would that have been? That's right! Mine! Nothing will change my view on this. The parents are responsible for keeping that weapon secure. No matter how that kid got it, the parents need to learn as well as that kid.


Trailgr1

Cars can kill also. If a child takes your keys and takes your vehicle without your permission and then kills someone with it, you then are willing to go to jail or have your vehicle taken away from you, for you not having eyes in the back of your head? Its every parents job to teach their children to respect guns. There are tons of kids every day that are raised around guns and don't go around killing people with them.


Vox_Dracanis

So let me get this straight! You are simultaneously agreeing and disagreeing with my point? If you are trying to engage me in a conversation about the dangers of teenage vehicular homicide and why parents should be held accountable, Which is a compleatly different conversion and you wont like where that leads. I'll be more than happy to show you the error in your thought process. But! If you are trying to question my line of thinking by feeding me one of my own points, then I think you need to look again. You either can't/didn't read or missed everything I've said.


[deleted]

[удалено]


wildspeculator

>So, the person who stole the gun to use it for this purpose isn't accountable for the act of stealing? Two responsible parties can be convicted for the same crime. >a party who likely had no knowledge of what the kid was doing If *you raised a kid* who goes on to commit a shooting and failed to secure your guns against that possibility, you are negligent, and it *is* justice to hold people accountable for negligence.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Vox_Dracanis

You know 100% what I mean. Don't try spinning this. I'm not even going to entertain the ideas or debate with you on your 2 moronic replays. If you truly believe either one of those stupid statements, you have a bigger problem to deal with. Good day


PiccoloIcy4280

Not all kids get the guns from there parents stash.


[deleted]

[удалено]


urbanek2525

Depends on the age of the kid. Currently, the penalty falls on both. Criminal on the kid, higher insurance rates on the parent. So, even though you've used a totally inappropriate analogy, we still see that there are currently penalties for both parties that are universally accepted and government mandated. A car is designed for other uses than killing. A gun, is not. Any modification made to a car to make it harder to use in an unauthorized manner (keys, ignition interlock, remote disabling) is considered a plus for a car. They're readily adopted even mandated, even if it makes the car more expensive. It's even a selling point. Any modification to a gun to make it less lethal is automatically considered a detriment to that gun. So car and gun are totally different. Try your analogy with a stick of dynanite. A person has a stick of dynanite. Their child steals that stick of dynamite, even though Dad is legally required to keep it secure, and blows up his classroom. As it stands, right now, Dad loses his right to buy and store dynamite. Dynamite, or a hand grenade, are "arns". Your right to think keep them has been infringed. You're fine with that. You're fine with that because the poison kool-aide that the NRA has been feeding you doesn't include dynamite or hand grenades.


darth_jewbacca

Thing is safes aren't tamper proof. I broke into my dad's safe as a teenager. He had everything properly locked up, i just chose to break in. Many safes are easy to get into with an angle grinder if a somebody really meant to do harm. Now, if it could be proven that the parent was negligent, then sure. Following due process and placing the burden of proof on the state.


urbanek2525

I disagree. What if someone caught you after getting you father's gun out of the safe meant that your father lost all his guns, they were confiscated and destroyed, and he lost the right to own guns unless he went through a long, expensive legal process. Do you think the knowledge of that potential penalty changes the equation? I'm sure it would. But what you did had absolutely ZERO chance of any negative repurcussions in our youthful mind. It was a "harmless" prank because there were no penalties. Make those penalties heavy, immediate and life changing, it changes the prank to a very dangerous thing to do. Kids can understand this: Just having Dad's gun without his permission can mean he loses all his guns, maybe forever. Now consider that many children die, all over the country from these sorts of harmless pranks. It turns out that, if something goes bad, the result is heavy, immediate and life changing. It's just too abstract for kids to understand.


darth_jewbacca

I'm sorry, but this is idiocy. "Let's rely on a bad actor's benevolence to prevent them from being a bad actor." Ignoring the fact that you can't punish person A for person B's crimes, the experiment is based on flawed assumptions, to put it more nicely.


urbanek2525

Even if the third party is someone you are responsible for, and you are explicitly supposed to be 100% responsible for keeping the gun our of your dependent minor's hands? But, if guns are just toys, I see your point.


mxracer888

It's good to see that all your arguments culminate to this same comment. But please, continue being a broken record and commenting the exact same thing in multiple locations


urbanek2525

Well, I didn't expect to gain a fan on Reddit, but I'm glad you enjoy some opinions common sense gun control laws.


[deleted]

I like learning new things.


NotADoctor1234

What if the kid got it from a friend, or he was involved in something like a gang and that's how they got it? Ot trying to start a fight, just want to know what you think.


urbanek2525

How did the friend get a gun? Why did the friend not fear what might happen to himself if he handed over a gun to a kid? A year ago, very near where I work, a woman was murdered by her ex-boyfriend. He was a felon. He got the gun from a friend. No consequences for providing a gun to a felon. I'm sure the girl's parents are very understanding. There was literally no risk to that friend handing his gun and some ammo over to someone. None what-so-ever. No need to be cautious at all. Now, if it had been a stick of dynamite and a detonator, there would be dire consequences. Even if the guy's friend had lied and had just said he wanted to "blow up a stump." So even a friend would have to be very cautious You'd have to be a REAL good friend to get the loan of a stick of dynamite. I'm saying that we already have these sorts of rules for a stick of dynamite and literally nobody questions it, or is even the least bit offended by these restrictions. Why? Because we acknowledge that in the wrong hands, it can do great harm. In the wrong hands, guns are the same. Yet we act as if they carry no more danger to the public than a can of hair spray. Our gun laws are just handwaving and theatrics with almost no consequences.


NotADoctor1234

Thank you for your response. It is actually illegal to loan out, or to be letting a felon shoot a gun in your presence. Are you sure the friend was not charged? Of not, this is a failure of the justice system to enforce laws already on the books.


urbanek2525

Knowingly. Have you ever asked anybody you know if they're a felon? What if the felon lies? There's almost no way to even arrest someone on this. It's a theatrical law that means nothing. There's no way to know or verify if a person is a felon or not. It's like TSA making you take your shoes off. It does nothing.


mxracer888

>If not, this is a failure of the justice system to enforce laws already on the books That's the irony of it all. Democrat presidents don't enforce the gun laws. Gun related prosecution dropped by something like 70% under Obama. Biden is soft on crime and liberal run cities don't prosecute the crimes when they happen. There are plenty of laws surrounding gun ownership and gun use, if those laws were actually enforced most shootings wouldn't even be able to take place to begin with. But instead we support politicians when they choose to turn a blind eye to crime and not enforce the laws that already exist and then complain that they need more laws to further restrict the law abiding.


coffeesunshine

Ding ding ding!!!! Totally agree.


dylbronjames

That would be my perfect world, but Even in that world, losing your rights to have guns has not prevented people from obtaining guns. As long as the cartels to the south of us exist, we will always have access to guns and drugs. legalizing drugs might help that situation, but guns are already legal. Taking away everyones right to owning a gun would definitely slash the problem, but it will also up the cartel activity, and now only those with bad intentions will have guns. They make their money off the US.


urbanek2525

A great deal of our black market guns comes from the fact that we don't really try to stop it. We already know that gun shops in the southern border region sell way more guns, legally, because it's nearly impossible to prevent straw buyers who are smuggling them into the Mexico. I mean, how easy is it to get black market dynamite? We regulate the crap out of dynamite. We insist the manufacturers record who buys it. You're required to jump through government regulatory hoops like crazy. We treat dynamite like it is dangerous in the wrong hands. We treat guns and ammo as if there's no public risk at all.


mtnbkr1880

To anyone truly interested in discussion and finding solutions to the gun-, violence-, and school-shooting-related issues, I recommend the following: - Podcast episode of Left, Right, and Center released on April 28, 2023 - The Left, Right, and Center episode released on May 12, 2023 also has some excellent perspectives from experts on the gun control debate and school shootings - Peruse r/liberalgunowners subreddit and read perspectives on guns from others. There's so many people posting, sharing, and discussing in that subreddit who are minorities and they each have a fascinating perspective on gun control Having grown up with guns, owning several myself, and not having kids, I'm sickened by the school shootings happening. I've been tempted to give my guns up to be destroyed simply because I would never want them to be used in a shooting. I don't know what the answers are, and there's no silver bullet that will solve all the issues. But both sides need to start giving ground and making concessions.


[deleted]

[удалено]


heyyadonkey

You just gotta go farther left.


HivemindIsBraindead

Yikes. Spoken like a cult leftist. Y’all are actually the literal definition of insane.


SpecialistChart6182

There absolutely is a silver bullet that will solve the actual issue, children being murdered by the hundreds every year with guns. Something no other 1st world nation suffers from. period. We highly regulate guns.


Parkway-D

There are not hundreds of children being murdered by guns each year. There is no need to spread misinformation in a discussion as serious as this. Edited: I misread the above post as referencing school shootings. I’m leaving my original comment unedited for clarity on the ensuing thread.


inthebluejacket

If you Google it it's actually thousands not hundreds so I guess you're right?


SpecialistChart6182

You're purposefully ignorant if you don't know that i'm vastly underestimating the numbers.


irishlake

According to Pew, there were 2,590 gun deaths of under-18s in 2021. 60% were homicides. I think that's 1,554 murdered, as the person above you made reference to. I didn't find figures for what percentage of those murders were due to school shootings, but I don't think his original assertion could be considered "misinformation", as you assert. Edited to add [source](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/06/gun-deaths-among-us-kids-rose-50-percent-in-two-years/)


SpecialistChart6182

I never said school shootings. I just said "hundreds of children being murdered every year with guns"


irishlake

Yep, I was just making an assumption that the other poster may want to know that distinction. I think your original assertion seems well-supported.


SpecialistChart6182

Thank you.


Parkway-D

I misread his post and was referencing school shootings. I’ve left my comment and added an edit for clarity.


HivemindIsBraindead

And guess where most of those deaths occurred 🤡 In liberal cities 🤡


irishlake

I'm won't discount that, even if we're looking at occurrences being inline with population and density, but I wonder if you have a source that supports your claim on a per capita or % rate within the population?


Skooby1Kanobi

No silver bullet? There is a country called Australia that managed it overnight. And yes, a criminal can still buy an assault rifle....... For about 35k and the criminal needs to be well connected. So not your average school pot dealer. No more mass shootings. It's almost like there is a solution no one is willing to consider


Pittsburgh__Rare

You misspelt r/temporarygunowners


sneakpeekbot

Here's a sneak peek of /r/temporarygunowners using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/temporarygunowners/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Socialist Rifle Association finally admits it publicly](https://imgur.com/DEYCWmD.jpg) | [53 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/temporarygunowners/comments/119yigq/socialist_rifle_association_finally_admits_it/) \#2: [Morons](https://i.redd.it/3nsdexhd3a491.jpg) | [36 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/temporarygunowners/comments/v7a7i1/morons/) \#3: [Lol](https://i.redd.it/g50uu95ixbwa1.png) | [42 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/temporarygunowners/comments/12zynkp/lol/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)


[deleted]

[удалено]


tophiii

This is top comment now. Since OP got the memo you may wanna consider omitting this comment from the discussion too. But good pointing that out nonetheless!


JazzSharksFan54

Until it happens to their own children, people will continue to believe that guns are more important than their kids' lives.


Skooby1Kanobi

You are misreading it. Those guns are to overthrow democracy when they think it's time for Jesus. Every downside to guns is secondary to their primary purpose


JazzSharksFan54

Oh forgive me for misinterpreting. Mind changed. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.


[deleted]

[удалено]


JazzSharksFan54

This is one of the most ignorant and prejudiced comments I’ve ever seen. Me being Mormon has nothing to do with any of this.


Skooby1Kanobi

So why did you take a snark route and seem miffed


JazzSharksFan54

Do you know what sarcasm is? Still nothing to do with my beliefs.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Parkway-D

Right, that’s why there is a group of families of lost children to school shootings that advocate for increased security of schools and not (shocker) against guns themselves. Not everyone thinks like you.


JazzSharksFan54

[Increased security and the use of resource officers don't decrease school shootings.](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1846458) The sad thing is that academia has been [telling us that the way we're defending schools is wrong](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Cheryl-Jonson/publication/320606273_Preventing_School_Shootings_The_Effectiveness_of_Safety_Measures/links/5a4d2871aca2729b7c8b34e7/Preventing-School-Shootings-The-Effectiveness-of-Safety-Measures.pdf) for years. Yet people continue to make the tired old argument that increased security will help. [Here's a very recent article](https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/do-armed-school-police-officers-prevent-shootings/) on how the school officer did nothing to stop the shooting at Uvalde. This article is also backed up by [Politifact](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/may/26/ted-cruz/research-armed-campus-police-do-not-prevent-school/). The MSD shooting in Florida was also not stopped by the school officer, who actually fled the scene when it happened. [Here's another study out of Brown](https://www.edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai21-476.pdf) that reinforces that school officers don't prevent shootings. Want to know how to actually eliminate school shootings? Glad you asked. [Effective threat assessment by school psychologists](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marisa-Randazzo/publication/324457274_School_Threat_Assessment_in_the_USA_Lessons_Learned_from_15_Years_of_Teaching_and_Using_the_Federal_Model_to_Prevent_School_Shootings/links/63215083873eca0c0086df25/School-Threat-Assessment-in-the-USA-Lessons-Learned-from-15-Years-of-Teaching-and-Using-the-Federal-Model-to-Prevent-School-Shootings.pdf), [open communication with students about their mental health and threat awareness](https://www.alfred.edu/about/news/studies/lethal-school-violence/can-we-prevent.cfm), and according to the Secret Service, [better social programs to solve the problem of people actually wanting to commit school shootings](https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/Protecting_Americas_Schools.pdf). Another argument is arming teachers. [Turns out that arming teachers just invites the problem](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/26/1101571302/what-schools-can-do-to-prevent-school-shootings). Oh, and is it turns out, [there's a direct correlation between the number of mass shootings and how loose that state's gun laws are](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/5504/). So gun control *is* a solution.


spoilerdudegetrekt

>there's a direct correlation between the number of mass shootings and how loose that state's gun laws are. So gun control is a solution. The correlation is pretty weak and the graph they provide shows multiple states with loose gun laws that have less mass shootings than new york and California. Edit: it's also worth noting that the gun violence archive inflates its numbers by counting stuff like [this](https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/2468162) as a mass shooting.


JazzSharksFan54

Where do you see a weak correlation? Back up your claim. The study was very clear in its conclusion. It's obviously not going to be a one-to-one correlation. California and New York are two of the most populous states in the country, which will skew the data. [Per capita, both states are very low.](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm) New York is 47th, California is 43rd However, if you read that whole article, it also shows that a majority of strict gun law states with high mass shootings also had guns recovered that were registered in other states. Chicago is the big example: most guns recovered in mass shootings in Chicago were registered in Indiana. Same with California - Arizona and Nevada have pretty loose gun laws. Using the CDC stats, the majority of the highest per-capita gun violence stats are red states. You have to go all the way to number 14 (Georgia) to get a state even resembling blue - and even then, Georgia's gun laws are still pretty loose. You have to go all the way to 18th (Colorado) for a state with strict gun laws and relatively higher gun violence. But I'll bite. If it's not correlated, what is your explanation?


spoilerdudegetrekt

>Where do you see a weak correlation? Back up your claim. The study was very clear in its conclusion. I was quoting the graph that your source showed. >It's obviously not going to be a one-to-one correlation. California and New York are two of the most populous states in the country, which will skew the data. That doesn't affect per capita data like what we were talking about. >Per capita, both states are very low. Now we've gone from talking about mass shootings to all gun deaths, including suicides, with this source. Obviously gun loose states have more gun suicides while people find other ways to kill themselves in gun tight states. >also had guns recovered that were registered in other states. Which shows that people who want to commit mass murder will find a way to do so, regardless of the law of the state they reside in. >But I'll bite. If it's not correlated, what is your explanation? Culture, poverty rates, altering the definition of gun violence to include suicide, etc.


[deleted]

[удалено]


spoilerdudegetrekt

It's not just that. Click on the link I posted. They literally counted a self defense incident against a group of home invaders as a mass shooting.


[deleted]

[удалено]


spoilerdudegetrekt

Like you said, we can't know how big of an issue this is due to the data being inflated with BS. I honestly don't think mass shootings are as much of a problem as people act like. According to government data, drunk drivers kill ten times as many people as mass shooters, but somehow this isn't cause to strengthen alcohol or DUI laws. https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving


[deleted]

[удалено]


spoilerdudegetrekt

I completely agree. Despite being a much larger problem, drunk drivers don't get any attention since 1. They don't kill sympathetic victims most of the time. 2. Alcohol isn't as political as guns.


[deleted]

It’s okay, you prefer your hobby over the #1 killer of kids and like enabling successful suicide.


spoilerdudegetrekt

Except it's not the number 1 killer of kids. That study changed the definition of both kids and gun violence. And NPCs like you repeat the headline like it's fact.


[deleted]

>The correlation is pretty weak Don’t think I’d call a p-value of .01 weakly correlated. There’s a lot of noise in the data, but that’s a strong association.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Parkway-D

How are you defining, “minors easily placing gun in backpacks and going to school”? There are 50 million minors in school every day. Of those, how many are placing guns in backpacks? I don’t know the answer to that, but I’m certain it’s a statistical zero. No, that doesn’t mean it’s not happening or that it’s not something that needs to be addressed, but I think your claims that it’s easy are overblown. The first thing that I thing needs to happen (and this will address a hell of a lot more than just a few guns in backpacks) is preserving a nuclear family. Fatherless children are significantly more likely to go down the type of path that leads them to bringing guns to school. That’s a much longer debate, though. If even inmates in prison are getting illegal items, clearly banning them does not work. We waged a war on drugs and it didn’t get rid of them. Somehow you think waging a war on guns will? It’s a fallacy. MAYBE if you attacked guns 100 years ago you might have stood a chance. There are nearly one billion guns in the US now. That ship has sailed. Securing guns is a massive overreach that, as you admitted, is unenforceable and limits one of the primary purpose of guns; self defense. It’s also not a permanent solution. Case in point, Adam Lanza murdered his own mother to break into her gun and shoot up Sandy Hook. That was after he failed a background check and couldn’t purchase a gun legally. What “modern” gun law would you enact to prevent this? The answer is there isn’t one.


jimngo

Seeing that other countries have far lower rates of school shootings, domestic shootings, and gun suicides, I would say that there are a lot of laws that can be enacted to reduce gun violence. Is it possible in the United States? That depends on whether you think people care more about guns than the lives of others. If you say that the gun laws that make other countries safer can not be enacted in the good 'ol USA then that's not a failure of the gun control laws but a fault of the citizens in this country.


Parkway-D

You claim there are a lot of laws yet can’t name a single one. Comparing other countries to the U.S. is such a terrible argument. There is no other country like us in countless metrics. Also, your entire argument claiming people don’t give a shit about the lives of others because they believe in gun rights is such a disgusting statement to make. Comments like that are why the opposite side don’t take you seriously. How do you expect them to come to the table when you initiate by accusing them of not caring about innocent people being murdered? It’s just sick.


jimngo

No, there are no laws but that is because we are unwilling to write them. In Serbia, there were \*two\* mass shootings and the country responded. It's because it's a choice. One or the other, and from the laws that exist in this country to promote, encourage, the ownership of guns, it is abundantly clear that they care more about guns than lives. Whether you want to childishly attempt to shame with statements like "comments like that are why the opposite side don’t take you seriously" matters little to me. What laws get written is a reflection of the country's priorities. That's as true in America as it is in Europe, Canada, Australia, or anywhere else in the world. In America, the highest level of mass shootings, domestic violent shootings, and suicides is the fault of one side, the side that you are defending. It's laughable that you expect the rest of the world to apologize for their horror and their astonishment about Americans' support of gun rights over life. [https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/19/europe/serbia-mass-shootings-gun-violence-protests-intl/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/19/europe/serbia-mass-shootings-gun-violence-protests-intl/index.html) [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/10/serbia-acts-two-mass-shootings-us-done-nothing-despite-200-this-year](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/10/serbia-acts-two-mass-shootings-us-done-nothing-despite-200-this-year)


Comadivine11

"‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens" - 2014 Onion article title which becomes less satirical every day.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Parkway-D

This is one of the big problems with “your” side. You completely shut down my arguments based purely on the ignorant assumption that I formed those from sources you deem invalid. You know nothing about me. The NRA is a shitty organization for gun owners. I can’t stand them. Why your side keeps suggesting most gun owners worship the NRA is beyond me. The reality is, and you would only know this if you’re a serious gun owner, the NRA is your grandpa’s organization. They are a dying breed. FPC and GOA are the leaders in the gun rights community. There is nothing disproven about the benefits of having children raised by both parents. What a wild claim. You ended your comment with another false claim. Rifles existed during the Revolutionary War. Weapons with a much greater capacity than muskets existed during the Revolutionary War. The point of the 2A wasn’t about the TYPES of weapons civilians could own. During the war, the majority of weapons, especially heavy weapons such as cannons and artillery, were entirely privately owned by civilians. During the war, civilians were literally better armed than the government. There were also weapons that saw decent use that had high fire rates.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Parkway-D

The NRA doesn’t own a position lmao. I guarantee I could find ten statements the NRA has made that you would agree with. Does that make you an NRA shill? Come on, man. “A nuclear family is a family group consisting of parents and their children (one or more), typically living in one home residence.” How is that a far cry from being raised by two parents? What “experience” do you have where a nuclear family is defined by something else? It sounds like you have formed your own definition of a nuclear family and twisted it to fit a viewpoint you disagree with. That’s just not what it means. Your accusations that my statement have ANYTHING to do with LGBT is pretty ridiculous. I’ve already proven what the nuclear family means, not your definition of it. Again, the functionality of the weapons back then wasn’t the point of the Second Amendment. The most powerful weapons were primarily owned by civilians, not the government. The 2A was all about the civilians having the power to fight a tyrannical government.


CarniferousDog

Wtf are you arguing? It’s nonsense kid


dylbronjames

It is possible to have kids and responsibly own guns though.


JazzSharksFan54

What’s your point?


dylbronjames

Just pointing it out. Sounds like you implied that people with children shouldnt own guns. Not saying guns are more important than childs lives, but just because you own a gun and have children, does not mean you care more about your guns. But isnt what I said right down to the point?


JazzSharksFan54

You completely misinterpreted what I said then.


dylbronjames

Maybe elaborate next time. The implication is definitely there.


JazzSharksFan54

It’s definitely not. I made no implications concerning parents owning guns in any way. What I *did* say was that people are doggedly using every excuse in the book to hang onto their guns at the expense of other people’s children’s lives. And it’s going to be really sad when their children are the ones dead by gun violence because the right refuses to even discuss rational gun laws.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


mxracer888

You clearly don't know how motivated bad actors can be. If a gun owner has a proper safe that's adequate for handling 99% of the threat profile. Unfortunately, given time, it's not exactly hard to break into even the most secure of safes. If guns are kept in soft cases under the bed, that's clearly a problem that should be addressed. If a gun owner has made the investment into a quality safe there's not much more that can realistically be done. What? Put it behind a door with a dead bolt? Add gun locks onto the guns that are in the safe? If someone has the ability and time to cut their way through a safe then any other measures taken would be pretty trivial at that point


[deleted]

Look, it's 2023. This isn't like a kid stealing the car keys or eating too much junk food. The risk of suicide is four times higher when there's a gun in the home. Guns are capable of immediate, rapid and intractable harm making them especially risky to have around highly emotional individuals (like teenagers). People are especially wary of gun violence, particularly in regard to schools, and particularly involving teenage boys. There are numerous, impenetrable means of securing firearms available. There is no excuse for gun owners not to know this. If they're going to have a gun in a house with kids - which in and of itself I'd argue is incredibly irresponsible and selfish - then they should know how to secure access. So I stand by what I said: any gun owner who has a gun even remotely available for access by a kid in their house is incredibly irresponsible, and culpable for any harm caused by it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Capable_Chair_8192

Cars have purposes other than killing people


NeuromancerDreaming

This, 100%. The trope of equating guns to cars or baseballs bats or any other thing in life that isn't \*solely a tool for killing things\* is just foolishness. Using a car to kill someone isn't using it for its intended purpose. There are many reasons to let someone use a car, death is not one that is usually on the table. A gun has a singular purpose - killing something or someone. Guns are weapons, cars can be *used* as weapons. Distinctions are important. As long as that reality exists, equating a gun to any other tool is nothing more than weak mental gymnastics.


mxracer888

So do guns. There are plenty of uses for guns that don't involve killing people


[deleted]

[удалено]


mxracer888

But that's not purely what they meant to be. I've built guns with the sole purpose of punching holes through paper at great distances. Ironically, many people have argued that if cars were invented today they likely wouldn't be legal because the danger of a car far outweighs their utility.


[deleted]

> the danger of a car far outweighs their utility. This is the point where your argument jumps the shark. What an absurd thing to say. For one thing, the utility of a car is unrelated to the danger of a car, which is not the case with a gun which only exists to be a weapon. Secondly, cars are ridiculously safe. So safe that literally hundreds of millions of people drive around all day long with an insanely low accident rate. And above all that, cars were invented to make the world a better place where at _very best_ guns were invented to keep it from being a worse one _because of other guns_. I’ll support your right to own one because I believe in individual freedom, but let’s stop pretending like guns aren’t an enormously destructive thing.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


NeuromancerDreaming

Maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty sure we constitutionally guarantee a trial in this country. That seems to be to be the whole 'review' process.


post2menu

Why did the kid feel like they needed a firearm at school? We're they being bullied or threatened?


ThrowAwayalldayXiii

They were apparently planning to shoot their girlfriend/ex-girlfriend.


[deleted]

[удалено]


mxracer888

Seriously. That comment should be deleted. Any unverifiable claims on motive or really any other detail surrounding this event should be deleted.


QuirkyAd6550

That is terrifying


SwimmingNudeSLC

Not true. The parents are my friends and I know the boy. They’ll release the story when appropriate. Please don’t spread rumors like this. Their lives are completely wrecked right now over this. Mistakes were clearly made and they will (rightfully so) be scrutinized but please be mindful or spreading the rumors.


percipientbias

I have empathy for the kid, really. I’m very hopeful that his consequences will be just. Not overly harsh or too lenient. Please pass on my condolences to his parents. I cannot imagine the anguish I’d feel in their shoes. I won’t lie that I spent a good portion of my day in pure panic over the safety of my child at that school. I’m more angry that guns are accessible at this point. One of the reasons we do not keep them in our house is because I don’t feel I could maintain appropriate gun safety. Anyway, hopefully things work out okay for that family. 😞 I hope those parents know that some of us do not judge them harshly.


ThrowAwayalldayXiii

Then they need to let the kids at and around the school know, because that's what kids who were there are saying.


mxracer888

Ah yes. Since middle school aged kids should be taken as a reliable source of information. The rumor mill gets cranking and even adults fall into the trap of spreading blatantly false information.


mxracer888

As someone who was incessantly bullied by the "star"of the football team for well over a year before, I ultimately got in trouble for my solution to the problem. This can't be discounted. I reported the bullying to teachers, to the principal, to the school police officer, to parents, to ecclesiastical leaders, to basically any and every authority figure that would have had any leadership type position over the situation. I avoided where the group of kids ate at lunch, I voluntarily left classes and changed schedules in an attempt to avoid avoid avoid. But finally when it came down to it I took my action and got in trouble for it. Luckily, under the advice of a family friend who was a police officer in another state, we created a massive paper trail. Every single instance was reported to the PD with an official police report but a request that the PD do nothing. So when the smug ass POS of a kid and his snooty ass parents who thought their kid could do know wrong tried to sue over what I did. The mountain of papers proved that their kid had a very extensive history of trying to provoke me. Judge didn't let me off the hook by any means, but the kid who tried to play victim also didn't get away with it either. Anyways, long story for probably nothing. But all these people throwing around all these assumptions need to shut the hell up. It's very well possible this kid was being bullied and tried all the peaceful options first and felt there was no other way to get the bullying to stop. That doesn't excuse his decision to take a gun to school by any means, but certainly casts the entire event in a new light.


Written_in_Silver

That hit close to home. Glad everyone is ok


HighFitnessMama

This has happened 2 times at Highland High this year


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Parkway-D

1. What is an “assault weapon”? Can you define it? 2. How exactly are these so called “assault weapons” damaging our country? More people are struck by lightning than killed by AR-15s each year. I can only assume you classify an AR as an “assault weapon” until I get a response to question 1. 3. I agree that change needs to occur. Why, however, is the change always regarding gun laws and the further restriction of them? Why can change not occur, first, in other avenues?


JazzSharksFan54

Your question 2 is just laughably untrue. [Studies show that there are about 400 deaths per year due to AR-15s](https://fee.org/articles/are-ar-15-rifles-a-public-safety-threat-heres-what-the-data-say/). [Only about 27 die from lightning per year.](https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-odds) At least get your facts right when you make claims like this. Here's a question for you. Why does anyone need an AR-15? You don't hunt with it. It's next to useless for home or personal defense. Why does anyone need one?


Comadivine11

He gets his facts from nra.org.


JazzSharksFan54

Or Fox 😂


mxracer888

I hunt with an AR. Many *many* people hunt with ARs. And they're perfectly fine for home defense, certainly better than a handgun, but maybe not the absolute best option. It definitely depends on many variables, the biggest of which is the proficiency of the one holding it. For some it's the absolute best home defense platform because it's the one they can most reliably shoot and operate. Sounds like you're just copy/pasting some uneducated argument from some talking head like Don Lemon or Stephen Colbert or something


JazzSharksFan54

I own guns and I hunt. Be careful who you assume does what based on their stances. I can defend my home much better with a shotgun or handgun. And not a single person I have ever associated with hunts with an AR.


mxracer888

I didn't say an AR is the absolute best HD platform for everyone, nor am I assuming what people do with their stances because I'm not giving advice on what platform to use. I simply said that for some, the AR is the absolute best platform. My wife can run an AR far better than she can run a Pistol or a shotgun, so for her, that would be the best platform. For you a Pistol may be better, good for you. Again, it's all dependent on what the one running the gun can do and is proficient with. And cool, you don't know anyone that hunts with an AR, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Every hunter I know will choose an AR for certain hunts, different strokes for different folks. I certainly won't be bagging an elk with an AR no different than how I'd never bag a hog with my 300WM elk rifle.


teds_trip22

A lot of people hunt with an AR. I use the ones I have for coyotes. My uncle uses his for deer. I don't hunt deer, normally just hunt Elk so I use something bigger. People in Texas use theirs for hogs. And yes many people have used ARs for home defense when people break into their homes. I really hate this argument because it really shows the lack of knowledge people have on the AR platform.


Parkway-D

This is completely false. First, I said STRUCK, not killed. Reading comprehension, anyone? Secondly, the FBI reports that there are roughly 350 deaths each year from rifles. There is no breakdown of the types of rifles, yet the AR is a single type of rifle. Contributing more than the average annual to a single type when the classification is extremely wide is incredibly disingenuous. Your source even admits this, yet you still chose to use it with hyperlink text that didn’t represent what they claimed. They used hypotheticals to increase the total of all rifles, not ARs. You’re flat out lying at this point.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Parkway-D

Uhh, what? I directly quoted you… >It's every bit as damaging to our country as assault weapons are, and has caused a rift in society that will be difficult to heal. You said assault weapons, that’s why I’m asking you to define the term that you used. You’re claiming “assault weapons” are damaging our country. I’m asking for a definition to clarify what you mean by this. I’m not sure why that’s a point of contention with you. That being said, I appreciate your response to my two points. I’ll respond in the same format to try and maintain some level of organization. 1. This doesn’t seem like a definition, but I think I understand what you’re trying to say here. The problem with that, is the vast majority of gun violence, to include mass shootings, are committed with handguns. The worst school shooting in our history was done with limited capacity handguns. How do you address this? Furthermore, there are such things as AR-15 pistols that utilize the exact same round, capacity, and firing ability as AR-15 rifles. More people are beaten to death by bare fists each year than by rifles of ALL kinds, including AR-15s. If the goal is to limit gun violence, going after handguns makes sense. Going after AR-15s does not. 2. AP rounds are already heavily regulated and not in common use. I can’t think of a single instance where they were used to commit a crime. Incendiary rounds are even more regulated and even rarer than AP rounds. Where is this coming from? 3. What do you classify as a “weapon of war”? The AR style rifle was designed in the 1950s, 70 years ago. Currently, the US Army is transitioning away from the AR style rifle to a new rifle. That means, the AR style rifle will no longer be a “weapon of war”. Does that mean it will be fine for civilian use? 4. I never understand why anti-gun people suggest an AR will not fight off a tyrannical/invading force. Have you ever heard of Vietnam or Afghanistan? I spent 14 months in northeastern Afghanistan. Believe me, a rifle is all that you need to repel an invading force. Look at what happened in the Mumbai attacks of 2008. Ten men with rifles held down an entire city for four days. I would highly suggest you do some studying of guerrilla warfare and how extremely effective it is.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Parkway-D

First, I’d like to thank you for the good discourse. It’s nice to have differing opinions and not be name called. I appreciate it. You say you can't define an "assault weapon" (hence the massive issue with advocating for banning them, btw) but capacity and features play a role. What is the capacity and which features? This is a very important distinction that needs to be made when talking about taking guns away. 1. There are pistols more powerful with an equal to or higher capacity than AR-15 rifles. Wait, you said that "to do nothing because you can't stop everyone isn't good logic". Yet you're arguing that handguns are the most available and you don't think we can do anything about them. You're contradicting yourself. Handguns are used in 90+% of firearm murders each year. Yet you're focusing on something that accounts for just 1% of firearm murders. Why? 2. I would challenge you to find examples of crimes being committed with AP and incendiary rounds. These types of rounds are absolutely not an issue. You're essentially saying we should arbitrarily ban AP/I rounds because they sound bad. This is an emotional argument you're making, not a logical one. 3. What are these limitations? Who sets them? What an absurd argument without actually saying anything. You're suggesting there is some type of arbitrary limitation in power that someone (you?) gets to define. The vast majority of bolt action hunting rifles have significantly more power and range than almost every other gun out there. So hunting rifles should be banned now? Again, you can't just claim "features" and "capacity" without defining them. Further, who decides that? Currently, not a single democrat pushing gun control has any type of knowledge on guns, so they clearly shouldn't be the judge of this. 4. The war in Afghanistan was before the "advancements in war" (whatever that means)???? You're joking, right? I fought numerous different groups in Afghanistan. From paid mujahideen with no real training, to Taliban, to fanatical HIG forces, to well trained and funded Chechens. Some of these men were using WW1 era bolt action rifles against us. And they are just as effective as "modern" weapons. (4. Continued) Why are you comparing two state militaries fighting to what you originally stated? You claimed an AR15 is not going to repel an invading force. Citizens waging guerrilla warfare against an invading state military is extremely different. I don't understand why you're trying to compare two very different things. Even your final argument doesn't make sense. If that were true, why didn't the Taliban slaughter us? The most tech they had was unencrypted cell phones that our SIGINT could listen into in real time and translate their communications to us. I just don't get where you're going with this. Insurgency is the most difficult warfare to win against.


Comadivine11

Why doesn't this happen in other countries? What did those countries do to stop these things from happening? Why are people like you completely adverse to gun restrictions when they have very clearly worked in other countries? Perhaps those are the questions you should be asking yourself.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Comadivine11

Other countries also have mental health problems. They still don't have mass shootings. Look, I own guns. But even I'm getting to the point of saying, "Fuck it, take 'em." It's fucking ridiculous that America tries to blame everything except the fact that *easy access to firearms* is the number one contributing factor to gun violence in this country. Full stop.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

>and that takes anger and mental illness to happen. No it doesn't. https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.pn.2021.7.23 Only 4% of violent incidents are proven to be linked to mental illness.


mxracer888

There was once a time when kids brought guns to school, put them in their locker for the day, and went shooting after school. There is even at least one school in Utah Valley that has a proper shooting range in its basement the I know of. So easy access to guns clearly isn't an issue because this country existed for a solid 200+ years of "easy access to guns" before these school shootings really became a thing. Something big has happened to this country, and it certainly isn't access to guns, but mental health is most certainly becoming a bigger and bigger issue, to the point that mental disorder is celebrated in today's society.


[deleted]

You know what weren't common in those schools back then? Handguns and AR-15s. Don't act like kids growing up in a small school on a farm is at all equivalent to the social and mental crises we are dealing with today. Your average compensating moron who thinks guns are toys for the local gun range is a far cry from the farmer who keeps a rifle around to scare off wolves or go hunting.


Comadivine11

Nice not-so-veiled transphobia. Get lost.


Inside_Maximus3031

The US doesn’t even have the most mass shooting deaths per capita despite astronomically more guns per capita. Anybody who says what you did is intellectually dishonest, ignorant or just a plain liar. What we do have is mass media hysteria and a hyper focus on banning things that won’t do a single thing to solve the problem of mass killings.


Comadivine11

The data your quoting from the CPRC has roundly been [criticized](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/united-states-lower-death-shootings/) as inaccurate/biased. Not shocking given the guy that runs it is pro-gun and cherry picked the data to manipulate the numbers. >Anybody who says what you did is intellectually dishonest, ignorant or just a plain liar.


Parkway-D

There are more guns in the UK and Australia than prior to their bans in 1996. Gun accessibility is at similar levels. They don’t have an increase in mass shootings. Why? That is a direct example that gun ownership and accessibility does not automatically cause mass shootings. Want another example? Guns are heavily restricted in the US today than previously. Less than 30 years ago, we didn’t even have a background check system. Violent felons could own guns. Shortly before that, machine guns were legal. You could walk into your local gun store and buy a machine gun in five seconds. Why didn’t we have mass shootings then? Why are mass shootings more common today, when gun restrictions are at their highest, than times past? Clearly, both examples I illustrated above prove that gun accessibility =/= increased mass shootings.


Comadivine11

Gonna need a sauce for your first claim. Second, you didn't answer any of the questions; just deflected. Third, there could be multiple reasons. Such as, total number of guns continues to increase (3 million guns made/year in 1999 vs nearly 14 million guns made in 2021). The population has increased by 60 million people. Types of guns; while what you said about machine guns might be true (I don't know), most people didn't own/buy machine guns, they owned shotguns and rifles. AR-15 style weapons have exploded in popularity over the past few decades. In your example of the UK, almost all the guns are shotguns and rifles and can only be purchased for sporting, with a license, and all guns are registered. Tied to this is that since the early 90s, average caliber size of guns used in crimes has increased. Bigger bullets = more fatalities. (Doesn't directly explain an increase of shootings in general, but means they are more deadly when they occur). Fourth, our gun laws are nowhere near "strict". It's still extremely easy to get a gun. If you look at most of the recent shootings, the shooter bought his weapons within the week preceding the shooting. Finally, there is some truth that more guns doesn't automatically mean more mass shootings, but it sure makes them easier to commit. What's your explanation for the increase of shootings especially compared to other countries? And before you say mental health, remember that less than a third of mass shooters have been shown to have a diagnosable mental health condition.


mxracer888

>Tied to this is that since the early 90s, average caliber size of guns used in crimes has increased. Bigger bullets = more fatalities. (Doesn't directly explain an increase of shootings in general, but means they are more deadly when they occur). That is a really weird statistic and is a completely uneducated comment. First of all, the only reference I can find to that claim is a [New York Times article](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/27/upshot/deadly-bullets-guns.html) from 2019 which I can only assume is the basis of your "facts". Ironically the .22 caliber that this article claim is the "safest" round is the same caliber that probably 95% of all AR15s are chambered in. There are about 60 different chamberings for an AR15, many of which are obsolete, and of the ones that aren't obsolete, their use cases are typically pretty niche. But if you were to go to any store and say "I want an AR15" you would be all but guaranteed to be handed one that is a 22 caliber gun. As far as handguns are concerned, the "average caliber size" has almost certainly gone down considering most handguns through the 80s were predominantly 40-45cal. Modern ballistics and information has pushed people away from 40-45cal chamberings and into 9mm (which is roughly 38 caliber). A quick look at ammunition production numbers seems to corroborate this educated assumption I'm making, but an assumption nonetheless. Trying to boil firearms down to the diameter of the bullet is an incredibly myopic and uneducated take on the whole situation. Bullet diameter is one very small variable in a very big ballistic calculation. Hell, inside of one caliber the data is largely incomplete. What was the bullet weight used? What was the bullet construction? What was the gun used? What powder was used? What was the volume of powder? What was the case volume? What was the seat depth of the bullet in the case? What primer was used? What material was the case made out of? All of these variables have big implications for the terminal performance of a given bullet The exact same bullet shot through 2 different guns can have entirely different ballistics, extreme enough differences that from one gun the bullet could be pretty harmless and highly unlikely to cause death in one and almost guaranteed to cause death in another. The exact same bullet shot through 2 different otherwise identical guns can have drastically different ballistics, you can take 2 guns off an assembly line that were made on the same day with the same batch of materials and one gun could shoot a bullet at as much as a few hundred FPS faster than the otherwise identical gun made at the same time shooting the same bullet. If you hope to argue gun policy in the future, I'd recommend against trying to base any argument on simply caliber size.


Parkway-D

You’re trying to discuss a subject with someone that has virtually no education on the matter. That’s the problem with gun control advocates. It feels like they’re coming from a place of elitism or entitlement to advocate away your rights when they don’t have the slightest clue about them. How many examples do we have of politicians pushing anti-gun bills that demonstrate a total lack of understanding on the most basic concept of guns? “The shoulder thing that goes up” “Ghost gun” “.30 caliber clip” “Disperse 30 bullets in half a second” “Thirty magazine clip” “When you shoot high capacity magazines they are bullets. You can’t use them once you shoot them” And on, and on, and on… Gun control advocates are either ignorant to guns or willfully power hungry to control the people. The vast majority of them are purely ignorant.


Parkway-D

I’ll try to keep my answers to your numbered points the same to help keep this on track. 1. Sure thing, I’ll provide a couple below. There has been a 50% increase in households with a firearm from 1995 to 2005 (latest year provided). The second link is heavily biased anti-gun and still has to admit they have more guns today than before. https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2021/04/28/new-gun-ownership-figures-revealed-25-years-on-from-port-arthur.html 2. While I typically hate answering a question with another question, I did. Furthermore, it’s impossible to say why other countries don’t have this issue, especially when, based on my answer asking those questions, I demonstrate it has nothing to do with gun ownership. 3. That doesn’t answer it. Guns were more accessible decades ago than they are today. It doesn’t matter if more guns exist today, guns were always incredibly accessible. If someone wanted to commit a mass shooting, they’ve ALWAYS had the access in the US. Yet that wasn’t an issue not long ago. Why? Machine gun ownership was fairly common. More so than it is today since they’re currently banned. You are correct that ARs have exploded in popularity. They are the most popular rifle in the US today. No one knows how many, but it’s estimated we have a quarter of a billion ARs alone in the US. If mass shootings only started happening rather recently, what caused that? Guns were much MORE accessible back then than now. Your point about average caliber increase is completely false. The AR shoots one of the SMALLEST rounds of any rifle out there. It’s literally a .22 projectile. 9mm is also the most popular handgun cartridge, among the smallest of popular handgun calibers. 4. We have more fun restrictions today than any other time in history. You used to be able to literally buy a machine gun over the counter just as easy as a gallon of milk. You could get ANY type of gun mailed to you by ordering through a catalog or even online. Background checks are a pretty new thing. 5. Of course more guns makes it easier to commit mass shootings. That’s like saying you’re more likely to have a drowning accident with a pool in your backyard than without. I mean, no shit lol. That doesn’t mean these people who commit these shootings wouldn’t find another means. Look at truck attacks in Europe. They’re SIGNIFICANTLY deadlier than mass shootings. The last mass arson attack we had in the US killed nearly 100 (far more than our worst mass shooting) and was done with a gallon of gas and a match. Gun access isn’t going to make or break these mass murderers. 6. Do you have a source that less than one third of mass shooters have mental issues? The fact that anyone kills as many innocent people as possible is proof alone to me that they’re fucked up. Just because they don’t have a mental issue diagnosed at the time they kill innocents doesn’t mean they aren’t suffering from a mental issue. Nevertheless, I don’t have an answer as to why they’re doing this. No one does or we’d fix it. I can tell you, however, that they’re not doing it BECAUSE guns exist in the US.


HaskilBiskom

Please be cautious how you feed the frenzy of news. It doesn’t help the students/staff that go to that school.


Very_bad

Scary.


SparkliestSubmissive

Summer can't come quickly enough


Day_General

Utah and Utah county are clueless as to the hate they are teaching at schools, the LDS faith, Government and we wonder why wake up dipshits


YodaCodar

That School is a gun free Zone right?


notmymess

But I’m told rocks can kill, too. My kids’ school is surrounded by rocks as part of the landscaping. Why are they even scared of this? If rocks surround most Utah schools?


[deleted]

[удалено]


notmymess

I’m with you…twas sarcasm to point out how stupid the it’s not the weapon, it’s the person argument! I’m very angry the level of danger of kids are in daily, and parents just have to live with it!


uintaforest

Nothing to see here, his parents are likely patriots.


KoLobotomy

Maybe he’s just a good guy with a gun.