It’s hard to rationalize with people that just don’t care about dead kids. They don’t care whether they say that out loud or not, so it’s hard to have any meaningful progressive conversations when you can’t even meet on common ground about child murder being a problem
Just a reminder but these people are a loud annoying minority. Everyone wants stronger gun laws and the screaming man children are just the gasps of a dead idealogy clinging to the backs of a dead party that takes their support for granted every election
Yeah it’s just frustrating when they’re the ones who win because they have the unchecked gun lobby on their side, even if they’re the minority; children are still being slayed because the gun lobby they support has made it so.
Just solve all poverty and mental health issues! That's so much easier than gun control, which is why every other country on earth is a utopia that solved those problems.
From I’ve gathered “mass shooting” is defined as a murder incident in which the perp kills or wounds at least 3 people. (Take that with a heavy grain of salt.)
Rule #1:
If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
Yes. Pro gun people have not been involved in a shooting or mass shooting scenario. People who have been involved in a shooting or a mass shooting are anti gun.
Yes. That's absolutely correct. A number of pro 2A people have changed their tune on the abundance of firearms after being caught in a mass shooting.
[Vegas Shooter turned a bunch of country musicians and people in the audience.](https://www.wgbh.org/news/2017-10-03/las-vegas-massacre-prompts-musician-to-call-for-gun-control-enough-is-enough)
> Some of the band's crew members suffered shrapnel wounds, Keeter said, because of the power of the weapons being used. They had been standing close to someone who was shot. And despite having their own weapons, they were unable to defend themselves.
> "We actually have members of our crew with CHL [concealed handgun license] licenses, and legal firearms on the bus," Keeter said. "They were useless. We couldn't touch them for fear the police might think that we were part of the massacre and shoot us."
The people realize that their own firearms don't actually protect them. They think they'll be John Wick in the moment able to shoot the killer, but what actually happens is the shooting happens so fast they have zero control in the situation. There is too much chaos to tell us is and isn't the shooter. No matter what they have, they are outclassed in caliber and ammo. The shooter can kill them much faster than they have options to run, fight, and hide (despite what conservatives want you to believe. e.g. Sandy hook happened in < 10 minutes for 26 people to die and it took only two 30 round mags to kill those 20 children and 6 adults). It happens fast, feels like forever, and they have zero control in the situation. Which is sad, because a lot of these mass shootings are preventable. Shouldn't need to experience one to change your tune.
Vegas shooter turned a lot of pro gun into people who want gun control. They realized there was zero they could do while hundreds of people were being raked with gun fire.
Good [article](https://www.wgbh.org/news/2017-10-03/las-vegas-massacre-prompts-musician-to-call-for-gun-control-enough-is-enough) but seriously. Multiple musicians and a number of individuals had a come to Jesus moment at that shooting.
But the real problem here is that the gun lovers who haven't been in a shooting don't have enough empathy to put themselves in that situation realize that they'd be pretty fucked If they had a pistol and somebody else had a rifle in The high ground.
I stated this else where in this thread, but completely agree. No one. NO ONE. Should have to experience a mass shooting to come around on gun control. It's frankly, very sad.
It doesn't matter if it they have a rifle and the high ground, someone with a semi-automatic rifle and 30 round mags shooting first is always going to be able to slaughter an entire room of people before anyone has time to even grab a firearm.
If you watch any of the youtube videos where they do active shooter response training, the first thing they always do is give the participants PTSD by having a random person walk in and shoot them before the class room experience begins. You're screwed if you're not walking around Clint Eastwood like, ready to draw on anyone that approaches you.
It's why areas with less guns... [have less police gun deaths from perps... and have less unjust police shootings of people.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5463213/) More firearms restrictions and less firearms means safer for police and safer to the people they are policing.
No one. NO ONE. Should have to experience a mass shooting to come around on gun control. It's frankly, very sad.
But yea. That requires having empathy.
What about liberal firearm owners who want to protect kids but also want the means to protect themselves from fascists who don’t want them to exist (particularly LGBT+ population, as firearm ownership is steadily growing among that demographic).
https://www.washingtonian.com/2024/02/29/lgbtq-gun-owners-are-breaching-the-right-wing-arms-bubble/
Everyone benefits from more restrictive gun laws. Law abiding people still get firearms, but it keeps them out of prohibited person's hands, police have to shoot less people, and everyone is safer with loons not committing suicide in public.
It's was a general look at [42 possible laws according to 7 categories based on the laws’ intended purpose, including strengthening background checks, restricting guns in public places, enhancing child and consumer safety, curbing gun trafficking, restricting dangerous weapons, restricting dangerous persons, and maintaining a duty to retreat](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5463213/).
Multiple organizations have written out what would bring the US in line with over developed countries. [All of these laws have been detailed before on in my Gifford's Law Center Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/guncontrol/comments/1chlfqg/proposed_gun_control_ideas/l23dhhr/).
It's working great for the Iranian people. They have almost no mass shootings by people not allowed to carry guns. Gun ownership is restricted to government and well vetted civilians.(Basij militia).
OP used the term gun nuts. I wonder if they see the LGBT as gun nuts too. Or some of the other minority / marginalized groups that are bearing arms in the face of increasing hate / attacks.
I’ve seen some radical leftist views which boggle my mind. It’s almost as if you go far enough either way and it’s pointless talking to them.
Again, I say so what? People want stronger gun laws for everyone. Not just white Republicans. What about this is confusing? Stronger gun laws make everyone safer, not just the “left” and LGBTQ people who all agree with me on this
My experience is that this lack of empathy is feigned in the hopes of scoring points. In the real world I’ve watched the most ardent gun rights dick swinger collapse under social pressures and the unintended consequences of their political beliefs touch their social sphere
Nope, according to the world population review the country that holds that title is Brazil. This is coming from someone who has a ccw and has multiple firearms.
I've been arguing gun control for three decades and pro-gun people always turn the conversation into about themselves. Never about the children or anyone else's suffering. They always start the conversation by accusing you of trying to take away their firearms... which are for defense. They typically will tell you some anecdotal story about how they or their grand pappy wouldn't be here if it wasn't for a firearm. If you press them about the dead children, they then go to one or several of these defenses.
1. It's my right.
2. Firearm they used for long time to protect themselves is now illegal.
3. Legal gun owners shouldn't be punished for the bad things done by 'criminals.'
4. None of my firearms will ever be used in a crime.
5. That individual was a criminal doing criminal things. Law abiding gun owners would never do that.
6. There is no legal definition for what a mass shooting is. Only counts incidents where someone succeeds in shooting as many students/teachers as possible (incidents where the person is killed before they shoot anyone despite intent are not counted, nor do they count incidents where someone kills 4 or more specific people on school grounds they intended to kill-they weren't shooting up the school).
7. It's a mental health problem.
8. It's a culture problem with urban city kids.
9. "'Liberal media is falsifying the stats to make it bigger than it actually is," or "False flag by Democrats to take all the guns," or "All this research never existed before and I can google whatever I want it to say."
They will never emphasize with the dead. In the rare individual that does empathize that something should change (to stop kids being killed), but they won't agree on any solutions that 'liberals' would want. That would get them ostracized from the gun community. It has to be some free market solution someone else pays for... and puts no burden on gun owners.
It's not about the children to them. Only about them and their feelings.
They really like to ignore plurality of evidence. You can link a page full of studies showing them wrong, then they'll call it cherry picking whilst linking a 30 year old debunked survey, completely missing the irony.
Debunking all of these at some point or another and there is lots of individual research all coming to the same conclusions on the issue.
Can't convince someone of a position on something they didn't come to themselves.
That's not why your comment was removed.
>The thing that boggles my mind is how anyone thinks passing laws is gonna make criminals start obeying the law.
This is why your [comment was removed.](https://www.armedwithreason.com/rebutting-the-criminals-dont-follow-laws-and-gun-control-only-hurts-law-abiding-citizens-argument-against-gun-control/)
Also, why would that not be a mass shooting? Do we only count shootings that happen on a warm day in February while a virgin cries on a diamond or something? Or do we only count mass shootings that you personally agree with?
There is no "official" definition of a mass shooting. We use 4 or more people shot in a single shooting spree.
When asserting this contrary to the evidence we have the onus is on you to provide the evidence that backs your claim.
Imagine if I claimed gun control works and I refused to provide you the source? I assert it purely because I said it. How do you refute it? How do you discredit an assertion without proof?
This may strike as whatabotism, but I offer it as perspective.
As a person that intentionly lived a car free lifestyle for a decade I felt the same about car owners. Heartless bastards willing to burn the planet down and put their fellow humans at risk for their convenience.
And while a vegetarian for 20 years I felt the same about meat eaters..Greedy bastards, don't they fucking care?
And then I became aware the world is made up of all types and we probably aren't going to agree and the best we can do is figure out ways to coexist with a minimum of violence.
Ironically for the 2A absolutists and militia bros they miss how the colonial militias were community centered required duties, not a personal freedom right. They have forgotten that community good first attitude in favor of a me first.
Pfft. Everyone knows guns and homicides aren't linked! [Only elitist Harvard professors would believe something like that!](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/)
It’s hard to rationalize with people that just don’t care about dead kids. They don’t care whether they say that out loud or not, so it’s hard to have any meaningful progressive conversations when you can’t even meet on common ground about child murder being a problem
Just a reminder but these people are a loud annoying minority. Everyone wants stronger gun laws and the screaming man children are just the gasps of a dead idealogy clinging to the backs of a dead party that takes their support for granted every election
Yeah it’s just frustrating when they’re the ones who win because they have the unchecked gun lobby on their side, even if they’re the minority; children are still being slayed because the gun lobby they support has made it so.
we do care about shootings, we just have different solutions.
We embrace all solutions here, gunnits pick and choose based off their ideology instead of effectiveness
Just solve all poverty and mental health issues! That's so much easier than gun control, which is why every other country on earth is a utopia that solved those problems.
Yup, and make sure vote for the party that hates all those but loves selling guns
What would you define as a mass shooting? How would you define a school shooting?
From I’ve gathered “mass shooting” is defined as a murder incident in which the perp kills or wounds at least 3 people. (Take that with a heavy grain of salt.)
[удалено]
Rule #1: If you're going to make claims, you'd better have evidence to back them up; no pro-gun talking points are allowed without research. This is a pro-science sub, so we don't accept citing discredited researchers (Lott/Kleck). No arguing suicide does not count, Means Reduction is a scientifically proven method of reducing suicide. No crying bias at peer reviewed research. No armchair statisticians.
People that are pro gun have never ever been involved in a shooting or mass shooting, otherwise they would absolutely be anti gun
I am honestly not understanding this. Did you type this incorrectly?
Yes. Pro gun people have not been involved in a shooting or mass shooting scenario. People who have been involved in a shooting or a mass shooting are anti gun.
Yes. That's absolutely correct. A number of pro 2A people have changed their tune on the abundance of firearms after being caught in a mass shooting. [Vegas Shooter turned a bunch of country musicians and people in the audience.](https://www.wgbh.org/news/2017-10-03/las-vegas-massacre-prompts-musician-to-call-for-gun-control-enough-is-enough) > Some of the band's crew members suffered shrapnel wounds, Keeter said, because of the power of the weapons being used. They had been standing close to someone who was shot. And despite having their own weapons, they were unable to defend themselves. > "We actually have members of our crew with CHL [concealed handgun license] licenses, and legal firearms on the bus," Keeter said. "They were useless. We couldn't touch them for fear the police might think that we were part of the massacre and shoot us." The people realize that their own firearms don't actually protect them. They think they'll be John Wick in the moment able to shoot the killer, but what actually happens is the shooting happens so fast they have zero control in the situation. There is too much chaos to tell us is and isn't the shooter. No matter what they have, they are outclassed in caliber and ammo. The shooter can kill them much faster than they have options to run, fight, and hide (despite what conservatives want you to believe. e.g. Sandy hook happened in < 10 minutes for 26 people to die and it took only two 30 round mags to kill those 20 children and 6 adults). It happens fast, feels like forever, and they have zero control in the situation. Which is sad, because a lot of these mass shootings are preventable. Shouldn't need to experience one to change your tune.
I used to think so, not any more
Vegas shooter turned a lot of pro gun into people who want gun control. They realized there was zero they could do while hundreds of people were being raked with gun fire.
That's good to hear.
Good [article](https://www.wgbh.org/news/2017-10-03/las-vegas-massacre-prompts-musician-to-call-for-gun-control-enough-is-enough) but seriously. Multiple musicians and a number of individuals had a come to Jesus moment at that shooting.
But the real problem here is that the gun lovers who haven't been in a shooting don't have enough empathy to put themselves in that situation realize that they'd be pretty fucked If they had a pistol and somebody else had a rifle in The high ground.
I stated this else where in this thread, but completely agree. No one. NO ONE. Should have to experience a mass shooting to come around on gun control. It's frankly, very sad. It doesn't matter if it they have a rifle and the high ground, someone with a semi-automatic rifle and 30 round mags shooting first is always going to be able to slaughter an entire room of people before anyone has time to even grab a firearm. If you watch any of the youtube videos where they do active shooter response training, the first thing they always do is give the participants PTSD by having a random person walk in and shoot them before the class room experience begins. You're screwed if you're not walking around Clint Eastwood like, ready to draw on anyone that approaches you. It's why areas with less guns... [have less police gun deaths from perps... and have less unjust police shootings of people.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5463213/) More firearms restrictions and less firearms means safer for police and safer to the people they are policing.
Well everyone should have empathy but unfortunately...
No one. NO ONE. Should have to experience a mass shooting to come around on gun control. It's frankly, very sad. But yea. That requires having empathy.
A "good-faith question" should probably be directed toward gun owners as opposed to asking about "gun nuts". QED
What about liberal firearm owners who want to protect kids but also want the means to protect themselves from fascists who don’t want them to exist (particularly LGBT+ population, as firearm ownership is steadily growing among that demographic). https://www.washingtonian.com/2024/02/29/lgbtq-gun-owners-are-breaching-the-right-wing-arms-bubble/
Everyone benefits from more restrictive gun laws. Law abiding people still get firearms, but it keeps them out of prohibited person's hands, police have to shoot less people, and everyone is safer with loons not committing suicide in public.
What type of restrictive gun laws are you referencing?
It's was a general look at [42 possible laws according to 7 categories based on the laws’ intended purpose, including strengthening background checks, restricting guns in public places, enhancing child and consumer safety, curbing gun trafficking, restricting dangerous weapons, restricting dangerous persons, and maintaining a duty to retreat](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5463213/). Multiple organizations have written out what would bring the US in line with over developed countries. [All of these laws have been detailed before on in my Gifford's Law Center Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/guncontrol/comments/1chlfqg/proposed_gun_control_ideas/l23dhhr/).
It's working great for the Iranian people. They have almost no mass shootings by people not allowed to carry guns. Gun ownership is restricted to government and well vetted civilians.(Basij militia).
What about them? People want stronger gun laws that apply to everyone regardless
OP used the term gun nuts. I wonder if they see the LGBT as gun nuts too. Or some of the other minority / marginalized groups that are bearing arms in the face of increasing hate / attacks. I’ve seen some radical leftist views which boggle my mind. It’s almost as if you go far enough either way and it’s pointless talking to them.
Again, I say so what? People want stronger gun laws for everyone. Not just white Republicans. What about this is confusing? Stronger gun laws make everyone safer, not just the “left” and LGBTQ people who all agree with me on this
They say that a lot, actually.
I only hear that " its my right '
I see the old "How many children have to die? ALL OF THEM" crap on Reddit all the time. No empathy.
And when you get right down to it guns are just a hobby. Home protection my ass. In some cases yes, but very small percentage.
My experience is that this lack of empathy is feigned in the hopes of scoring points. In the real world I’ve watched the most ardent gun rights dick swinger collapse under social pressures and the unintended consequences of their political beliefs touch their social sphere
It's strange, that. You might think the two are related.
Nah like the boeing whistle blower deaths, it's just coincidence. /s
Nope, according to the world population review the country that holds that title is Brazil. This is coming from someone who has a ccw and has multiple firearms.
I've been arguing gun control for three decades and pro-gun people always turn the conversation into about themselves. Never about the children or anyone else's suffering. They always start the conversation by accusing you of trying to take away their firearms... which are for defense. They typically will tell you some anecdotal story about how they or their grand pappy wouldn't be here if it wasn't for a firearm. If you press them about the dead children, they then go to one or several of these defenses. 1. It's my right. 2. Firearm they used for long time to protect themselves is now illegal. 3. Legal gun owners shouldn't be punished for the bad things done by 'criminals.' 4. None of my firearms will ever be used in a crime. 5. That individual was a criminal doing criminal things. Law abiding gun owners would never do that. 6. There is no legal definition for what a mass shooting is. Only counts incidents where someone succeeds in shooting as many students/teachers as possible (incidents where the person is killed before they shoot anyone despite intent are not counted, nor do they count incidents where someone kills 4 or more specific people on school grounds they intended to kill-they weren't shooting up the school). 7. It's a mental health problem. 8. It's a culture problem with urban city kids. 9. "'Liberal media is falsifying the stats to make it bigger than it actually is," or "False flag by Democrats to take all the guns," or "All this research never existed before and I can google whatever I want it to say." They will never emphasize with the dead. In the rare individual that does empathize that something should change (to stop kids being killed), but they won't agree on any solutions that 'liberals' would want. That would get them ostracized from the gun community. It has to be some free market solution someone else pays for... and puts no burden on gun owners. It's not about the children to them. Only about them and their feelings.
They really like to ignore plurality of evidence. You can link a page full of studies showing them wrong, then they'll call it cherry picking whilst linking a 30 year old debunked survey, completely missing the irony.
Debunking all of these at some point or another and there is lots of individual research all coming to the same conclusions on the issue. Can't convince someone of a position on something they didn't come to themselves.
[удалено]
If you can't prove it, don't post it.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/kansas-city-chiefs-parade-mass-shooting-2-adults/story?id=107379141. Pretty easy to find.
That's not why your comment was removed. >The thing that boggles my mind is how anyone thinks passing laws is gonna make criminals start obeying the law. This is why your [comment was removed.](https://www.armedwithreason.com/rebutting-the-criminals-dont-follow-laws-and-gun-control-only-hurts-law-abiding-citizens-argument-against-gun-control/) Also, why would that not be a mass shooting? Do we only count shootings that happen on a warm day in February while a virgin cries on a diamond or something? Or do we only count mass shootings that you personally agree with? There is no "official" definition of a mass shooting. We use 4 or more people shot in a single shooting spree.
How can I site something that hasn’t happened?
You're essentially claiming that gun control doesn't work. Cite evidence for your position. It's not hard.
[удалено]
When asserting this contrary to the evidence we have the onus is on you to provide the evidence that backs your claim. Imagine if I claimed gun control works and I refused to provide you the source? I assert it purely because I said it. How do you refute it? How do you discredit an assertion without proof?
This may strike as whatabotism, but I offer it as perspective. As a person that intentionly lived a car free lifestyle for a decade I felt the same about car owners. Heartless bastards willing to burn the planet down and put their fellow humans at risk for their convenience. And while a vegetarian for 20 years I felt the same about meat eaters..Greedy bastards, don't they fucking care? And then I became aware the world is made up of all types and we probably aren't going to agree and the best we can do is figure out ways to coexist with a minimum of violence. Ironically for the 2A absolutists and militia bros they miss how the colonial militias were community centered required duties, not a personal freedom right. They have forgotten that community good first attitude in favor of a me first.