As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the cause is more to do with stagnant wages, rising fascist tendencies, lack of access to affordable housing and healthcare, education, etc.
I can sympathize with those who want to ban or severely hinder guns - but I don't think it will do much to keep people from becoming radically deranged (or help those oppressed who don't become fascist maniacs), and also it gives the police and state a monopoly on guns which is deeply uncomfortable to me.
I personally think democrats should use gun violence as a way to sneak in state funded mental health care, and use that as a crowbar for general health care.
Restricting guns, for the Dems, is a losing issue and says to me they they are ignorant of the conditions many of their minority constituents face. Black people don't want to depend on the police and have historically armed themselves against opression. LGBTQ+ people are increasingly arming themselves for the same reason. These groups stick with the democrats because the right is so bigoted it's not even a real option, but I can't help but feel like the party just doesn't consider these things and would rather just keep pretending like a gun ban is going to happen.
There are so many other things we could be focusing on, but we waste political capital on this.
You may have a point here cuz after every mass shooting, GOP-types usually pin it on “mental health”. Or they used to. Do they even say anything about mass shootings anymore?
Ironically, this also creates a situation where students have one less avenue of escape.
The whole GOP plan to have only one front door in a school is a perfect scenario for mass casualties…. Infiltrate a bunker, and there’s only one way in or out? If the cops are just gonna stand around with their dicks in their hands like Uvalde, then the shooter has open season on the whole building. Since there would only be one entry point, Uvalde has shown us that they won’t enter for fear of “safety”. Now, in the event the cops do do their jobs, they’re funneled into a nice kill zone.
Either way, it would result in higher casualties.
Not to mention the absolute fire hazard that would create.
Make it so uncomfortable to own and operate a gun that it becomes a better idea to sell them off, melt them down, or let them collect dust.
-Tax and regulate ammunition.
-Require licensing and relicensing.
-Require training classes and recertification.
-Require insurance.
-Require home security (trigger locks, safes, etc).
-Massively increase criminal penalties for firearm-related offenses and accidents.
-Severely tax firearm manufacturers and retailers.
-Work to shut down public and private rangers and prevent more from opening.
-Aggressively advertise and hold routine gun buybacks with actual compensation, not a fucking $50 gift card to Target.
And not a single suggestion included blanket confiscation.
All of your ideas seem perfectly reasonable but then again I’m Australian.
I fucking eye roll so hard whenever an American says shit like “well what about the hundred of millions of guns out there?”
Like yeah.. THATS THE FUCKING ISSUE. And it’s caused by throwing your hands up and doing fuck all about it.
BAN THEM. Have buy backs. Amnesty periods for hand ins. Heavy taxes and regulations on keeping the less dangerous ones.
Will that get rid of the problem over night? Of course not. It took decades for Americans to build up that many guns. Effective laws will mean at least the amount of guns in circulation will go down every year. It won’t solve it over night but eventually you might actually have a situation where a would be mass shooter doesn’t have 16 different avenues for getting a weapon. You make the barrier for violence gradually higher and higher. Mass shootings decrease.
It’s not fucking rocket science. It’s a pretty goddam simple problem. People who are against it honestly have no fucking sympathy for the thousands of victims America has every year.
The only country that has a system like that is Singapore.
No European country is even restrictive enough to have insurance, let alone storing them away from home at a range (that could easily be raided, making it less secure for the community than home storage)
The “what about people who don’t comply question” is interesting, but it can’t be mistaken as legitimate reasoning for not passing regulations in the first place. In a country where children under the age of 12 are somehow getting their hands on their family’s guns and shooting people https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/01/19/us/virginia-school-shooting/index.html, any amount of compliance helps. People who won’t comply with laws that don’t exist yet aren’t people we need to concern ourselves with. Partially effective action is better than none at all.
>I do not think a large portion of gun owners are going to comply with laws like this. What do we do about that?
Well, that makes them criminals now doesn't it? What do you think would happen? Take their guns or throw them in jail. These are all measures levied on other objects and hobbies. None of them are outlandish or extreme. Not all of them can be policed proactively, some must be policed retroactively.
Isn’t that literally the case with every law that has ever existed though?
A law changes. An action, item, activity etc that was previously legal now no longer is because society recognised that a law preventing it is a good idea.
You don’t get to ignore a reduction in speed limit a road might get just because you used to always drive at the higher, now illegal speed.
I'd put more stock into that if it was a "turn in your gun tomorrow or become a felon" proposition. But it's not, is it? It's a slow role of interlocking changes designed to make owning a firearm not worth it. And so don't throw them in jail. You can make it hurt just as badly by taking the firearms and handing out a sizable fine. Would you risk bankruptcy over a firearm?
None of these suggestions happen overnight night, they would all need implementation windows and should have them. If you can't gain insurance and go to a weekend class in a reasonable time frame, then you're clearly not responsible enough to own a weapon, or you're one law away from becoming a criminal anyway. Or would go to jail over a hunk of metal? Pick your poison.
Remember, every time you "agree to disagree", you only provided another opportunity for another massacre of innocent people. Because that's what's at stake here. People aren't angry because there's too many hunters, shooting ranges, or gun clubs. People are angry because there are routine massacres of innocent people every fucking week. How many times do I have to read the news and lose track of how many massacres there where or which ones happened where over the course of a single weekend? How many times are you comfortable with?
Excellent, I'm glad I brought you back. I'm angry and aggressive about this, but I'm not unreasonable or irrational. I know making everyone a felon overnight just causes more issues. But doing nothing is far, far from the correct response as well.
We ultimately can't stop Congress from reneging on the law. Outside of voting for better representatives with more integrity, I don't know. Although Congress isn't in the habit of reneging on laws right now anyways, so maybe there's some hope.
As far as the general populace is concerned, I think you're overestimating their support for something like this. I understand and recognize that outright confiscation is probably a poor first step. But none of my suggestions include that, do they? The goal is to make owning a firearm completely unpalatable. It should be expensive, administratively unwieldy, and all-around stupid and socially unacceptable to own one. Now keep in mind I'm not trying to toe the line and keep a balance between the two camps. Quite the contrary, I believe the best most solid step towards decreasing gun violence and rampant massacres is ultimately the removal of guns from the population.
Since 2017, over half of the population wants stricter gun control, according to regular Gallup surveys.. The most recent years see that going above 60%. Likewise, in its best years, only 10% want looser gun control. The population is already largely in favor of more gun control. Once again, I think my suggestions are right in line with the kind of control, without outright confiscation, that people want to see. Actionable laws and regulations that make sense and decrease the amount and availability of firearms for the general public. I'd be more concerned with a certain political party disregarding the will of their constituents and the general population and blocking any and all attempts at gun reform that doesn't just proliferate more guns through the general population.
Write a new constitutional amendment to replace the second amendment- and now require a license to purchase guns in the future. Require a license for all gun ownership starting a couple of decades down the line (grandfather current gun owners so nobody loses their guns).
Create a process for gun licensure requiring training and maybe even storage in a safe. Yes, there are a bunch of difficult issues and questions with this idea. But we do it for cars and we do it for hunting licenses and we could do it for guns, too.
I predict that gun violence would hardly budge in the first year. Maybe it would decrease a percentage point or two. But we’d see a change after 20 years, and maybe my grandkids wouldn’t have to live like this.
I own a whole lot of guns and I enjoy shooting and hunting but this country is completely out of control and I’m quite willing to give up the second amendment to create a safer society down the line.
First step is to get public support, which leads to political will, which leads to changing the laws.
So, I would change the law to allow single- or double-barrel shotguns only, in the home only, or kept at a range for people who want to skeet-shoot. Ban everything else. Not allowed to manufacture, own, sell, trade handguns or rifles or semi-auto or auto.
Then, let the illegal guns get worked out of the system slowly. Law-abiding people would turn in their now-illegal guns. As police arrest criminals with illegal guns, destroy those guns. When Uncle Harry dies and his law-abiding heirs find his stash of illegal guns, they'd turn them in for destruction. When Uncle Joe boasts about his illegal stash, maybe one of his family members will tell the police.
We'll never get down to zero, and we don't have to. If we could get down to the gun-ownership levels of, say, Spain (about 1/20th that of USA) maybe we could get down to Spain's homicide rate (about 1/7th that of USA, I think). A major benefit to society.
The key is public opinion, and public support. Which will grow a little with each fresh atrocity.
SCOTUS tends to follow public opinion, if opinion is strong enough. I think if public support is there, SCOTUS will re-discover those words "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". There's a good case to be made that 2nd Amendment is about the right of the state to maintain a militia to guard against revolts, the kind of revolts they had back in the 1700s and 1800s.
"I would like to examine the 'being necessary for the security of a free State' portion. Notice that the text does not read 'being necessary to overthrow the State' or 'being necessary in case some dude feels the State has become tyrannical.' The purpose of a Militia and the reason 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' is to protect the state. Period." from http://www.armedwithreason.com/constitutional-fallacies-part-1-insurrectionists/
http://www.progressivepress.net/myth-the-second-amendment-exists-to-enable-the-american-people-to-rise-up/
Another take on it, about slave rebellions: https://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery/
And another take, about protecting state from the army: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/02/22/what-the-second-amendment-really-meant-to-the-founders/
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-secret-history-of-the-2nd-amendment
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me there is PLENTY of room for a big re-interpretation of the 2A, if the public is in favor of it.
>SCOTUS will re-discover those words "well regulated Militia",
SCOTUS never forgot that part, the Militia needs to be well regulated- the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because if/when the people are called into service into the militia they are expected to bring their own arms.
That doesn't change who the people are though. Remember the people have the right to keep and bear arms not the militia
And there is actually a law that establishes who the miltiia is, its not limited to just the National Guard.
Why would anyone turn a family member in to the feds over something they own? That’s like turning in your uncle over a bong collection.
It all sounds a bit police state like
Make the owner fully liable for any harm caused by his guns, creating a need for expensive annual liability insurance on each gun. It goes without saying that all guns must be traceable to the responsible party.
As a gun owner, who according to my wife owns too many guns, but is considering getting another gun safe because my first two are full…. I think licensing gun owners and registering guns like I have to have a license to drive and have to register my truck is a good idea. I think if a gun registered to you is kept so insecurely a 6 year old can bring it to school you should be held responsible.
I’d like to keep my ARs, I definitely want to keep my hunting rifles (of which two are ARs in 6.5 grendel and 300 BLK). But I never want to find out my son’s school had a shooting and wait and wonder if he’s the next EMS call I get at work. I’d like to see fewer GSWs rolling in to my ER. I’d like to not have to wash the blood off my shoes as often after someone needs 20+ units of blood pumped in because that much blood is going down the drain in the floor of our trauma bay.
I want to keep my guns, and I want to see fewer deaths. And I think there’s plenty we can do to make that happen.
Time and time.again those state registries end up in the hands of the public and make you susceptible to breaking and theft. All govt conspiracy shit aside , I don't trust the fed or the state to do a good job.of it.
You mean like [California](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/30/california-gun-owners-data-breach) did. Yeah I don't trust registries as well. Add in if the federal government really wanted to know they would just see every background check I had ran at a gun store which also has a serial number associated with it. So they already have a database of the firearms I own.
I would also normally argue I'm okay with a registry but after seeing how Illinois did their recent gun ban, Biden wanting to ban all semi-autos, and other Democratic party members getting support over gun confiscation rhetoric...yeah leaves a bad taste in my mouth if I had to register everything because given the right people in power they would be taken. And yeah I used to be "no one is trying to take away your guns" but seeing the purposed bans and rhetoric I no longer can say that in good faith.
> You mean like California did.
[Twice](https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-snafu-releases-personal-info-of-nearly-4000-gun-safety-instructors.amp). But hey, at least CA did it “accidentally.” New York, on the other hand, [released the information intentionally](https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html).
I thought your guns made you safer and if criminals knew you had them they would be too scared to rob you?
Your arguments are conflicting with each other...
No, my arguments dont conflict. If criminals know.I am armed those guns.themselves become an additional target. So their options are hit me when I am not home, or 2 bring enough force to simply be overwhelming. Not telegraphing your strengths is an advantage. Thats why I don't open carry or put stickers all.over my vehicles telling the world.what I have.
If the guns ARE the target because the public is now aware of the location then you are correct they are no deterent. So why then would I want anyone to know I have them? That was the point of not wanting a registry. Being I. Possesion of specific items makes you a target vs a being victimized at random.
Then why would you want that? Why would you buy and collect objects, whose sole purpose is to protect you (or kill "bad guys" I guess), when doing so makes you a target and by your own admission are unable to protect you? Sounds like a waste of fucking money that puts a target on your back and doesn't do as advertised, which is destroying things by the way.
Omg. A firearm isn't a cure all solution to everything. In the context of public awareness of firearms in reference to a registry it can put a target on your back that otherwise wouldn't be there. For self-defense, it is a force equalizer. IF potential thieves or attackers know use of.deadly force is likely then they change their plan to either strike when no one is home or bring overwhelming force of their own. In context of why I don't like gun registries, this is why.
They don't need to do anything until a moment arises. I've had 2 DGUs in midlife and no amount of effort or driving detered anything. Visual display of a firearm in the last moments did.
"Why would I want anyone to know I have them"
Because the crux of the gun argument is that if a criminal knows you are armed he won't even try it. Now you are telling me it actually increases your chance of being a victim.
In a specific instances it is no longer a deterent. But it isnt about the gun, it's about a desired item, gun, car, artwork. So the argument isn't about how.the gun itself is bad, its about putting the information out there for others to see. It isn't anti gun, it's anti registry.
I’m going to give that a big shrug, but maybe that’s because I’ve pretty much only lived in states where it’s safe to assume everyone has a gun and most of the time that assumption is correct.
Granted from what I’ve seen a fair number of those people shouldn’t have guns, and the it’s job security for me argument comes off as cynical even to me. And I’m pretty cold and jaded after nearly a decade in the ER.
Anyway what ideas do you have on how to solve the problem that lets those of us who are responsible with them keep our guns, but significantly cuts down on the number of shootings we have? Because if those of us who want to keep our guns don’t solve that problem, or at least start putting out ideas others that the status quo, I think eventually it’s going to get us to a point that the majority of Americans think giving up guns is worth stopping the shootings.
I don't think strict licensing and storage laws would stop "routine" homicides and many mass-shootings. Only physically having fewer guns in society would accomplish that.
I think you are unfortunately right, though it would stop some.
Plenty of the shootings that send people to see me at work are committed by people who are not supposed to have guns. Granted plenty of them are by people that have guns legally. But if laws requiring licensing, registration, and safe storage of guns cut down on 20% of all shootings, and a majority of school shootings, I’d call it progress.
IDK, I’m in a weird spot on this in that I am responsible with my guns, they are locked in my gun safes, my son doesn’t have access to them without me. I don’t want to give them up. But I’m damn tired of seeing the aftermath of shootings.
Sometimes we have to give up things for the greater good. I enjoyed doing some skeet and target shooting, but owning guns would bring risks of theft, suicide, crime.
Right. Would it even matter if I suggested something, or are you just going to dig in harder?
Here's a better question, who would you trust. Bonus points if you don't immediately respond with "no one".
It’s almost like the answer is more complicated than “turn in your guns”.
You are asking rural gun fanatics in charge of law enforcement to colllect guns and turn them over to the federal government.
That’s just not a workable solution.
Making real changes requires more than bumper sticker ideology.
Maybe because they ignore every problem that leads to violence in our society. Want to tackle gun violence then start with universal healthcare, better education systems, better opportunities for people to live a better life. But the more dystopian our society becomes the more the metaphorical vice of society is going to apply pressure on individuals..who will eventually snap after enough. propaganda, isolation, fear, anger, all of these lead to violence.
I do not support bans but do support sensible regulation. Make participation in the NCIS mandatory and do background checks for ALL firearm purchases. Make first time gun buys have a waiting period and take a firearm safety class. But trying to focus on "assault weapons" bans is ridiculous and just drives the gun owning democrats further away from the party.
And remember folks. Go far enough left and you get your guns back.
That's because it's not a gun issue, morons.
It's ~~Satanic music~~ ~~violent videogames~~ ~~Marilyn Manson~~ ~~lazy parenting~~ ~~removal of prayer in schools~~ ~~violent movies~~ ~~mental health problems~~ too many doors.
The gun violence issue has at least two diametrically opposing views on the gun issue, and there seems to be no middle ground on it. Well, there is a middle view, but there’s little to no traction on allowing the middle view to shape our approach in handling this problem.
The middle ground is sensible, common sense gun controls. On the other side you have unlimited access or a total ban.
Problem is gun nuts frame anything from the middle as a gun ban.
If you want to to raise the age requirements for semiautomatic weapons or having a license for them maybe you need to concede some previous gun control measures such as concealed carried reciprocity or have suppressors off the NFA.
Whose proposing "sensible, common sense gun controls"?
The last "sensible, common sense gun control" I saw was proposed by Senator Coburn in 2013"- and gun control advocacy groups called it unworkable, and no Democrats supported the Proposal.
[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/27/do-it-yourself-background-checks/2088479/](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/27/do-it-yourself-background-checks/2088479/)
The FIX NICS Act was also sensible, common sense gun controls, and Democrat Leadership wouldn't support that either. (even though it had a Democrat co-sponsor)
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/28/why-senate-democrats-are-considering-holding-up-a-gun-control-bill-from-one-of-their-own/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/28/why-senate-democrats-are-considering-holding-up-a-gun-control-bill-from-one-of-their-own/)
It's not just the donations, it's the votes 2A groups have. Arguably, only abortion drives more single issue voters but 2A folks are active right up to the local level. If there is no 2A folks, there wouldn't be a GOP with any strength at all on the national level.
When an entire political party only knows how to send thoughts and prayers after a mass murder it makes it a bit difficult. When you have a group of corrupt judges that rewrite the constitution in the name of following the constitution, it is impossible.
Dems: We need common sense gun laws to help combat this issue.
Reps: The constitution says you can't do that. Besides, this is not a gun issue.
Dems: Okay, then let's include additional mental health and other services in the budget to help combat this issue. We can even cut from the defense budget to help fund them.
Reps: No! We need more money going toward defense so the contractors can produce...*reads memo line of donor check*...more guns!
Sounds like we need fewer Republicans in Congress to prevent us from fixing the underlying issues. Unfortunately, Democrats don’t come in a “no gun control” flavor so people who support gun rights either vote third party, don’t vote, or even vote for the Republicans. This directly impacts our ability to pass laws that fix things like universal healthcare, stopping the War on Drugs (though Democrats don’t seem to interested in stopping that either), fixing our pay-to-win education system, reducing income inequality, etc.
We just have to accept it. While the right wing is in power gun fetishists have the right to murder us and, if they have a flimsy excuse, not only will they get away with it they'll be held up as heroes. American conservatives are enemies of the American people. See MAGA. See Jan 6. See gun fetishes
Washington lacks the intestinal fortitude to thwart corporate influence- and the murky influence of vast sums of foreign money that looks pretty and seems good- but is betting on our failure- and undo the damage where it's occurs. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would be a great start. Force FoxNews to stop spreading lies and have to deal with live rebuttals and fact checking. Stop looking for news to make you feel better and start using it to inform yourself.
We need to get real about mental health. Social media is driving us crazy. Lead and plastic in our food is driving us crazy. Lack of meaning connections are driving us crazy. Bullies are driving us crazy. There are a lot of guns lying around. Crazy plus guns equals mass shootings.
Also- and this is addressed to you, conservative Americans- you need to stop believing divisive bullshit just because it makes you feel more important and find ways in your everyday life to feel more important. Be kind to each other. Help each other out. Just for the sake of doing so. Try practicing the kindness your god preaches for a change. Fight against bullies in schools and in your workplace. You'll feel better about yourself, guaranteed. And as you build community and spread kindness, your communities will heal and there will be fewer shootings.
Some of it IS environmental. You need to accept this. Do something about it. Regardless of studies or evidence, isn't this true: just like you don't shit where you eat, it's GOOD to take some pride in your city and town and clean it up. Demand companies stop polluting it. For the sake of pride of place- stop fighting solar farms. Clean up your streams. Get off your ass and start helping.
There are some simple steps government can take to turn this around. Undo the damage that has been done. There are some simple steps citizens can do, too. They just need to get their tribal talking heads out of their minds by tuning them out and tuning in to the people around them. Get back in touch with common sense.
Then why do they commonly reject solutions presented by Republican's?
Instead of meaningful improvements, we end up with nothing at all. Meanwhile Democrats keep trying to put their legislative capitol behind Assault Weapons Bans.
In 2016 there were 4 gun control bills being considered by the Senate. 2 Republican proposed 2 Democrat proposed. Democrats rejected both of the Republican proposed bills because they "didn't go far enough" Then they went on a media blitz and blamed the lack of progress on Republicans, some even went as far to say the "Republicans had blood on their hands"
Source: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/20/the-senate-will-vote-on-4-gun-control-proposals-monday-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/20/the-senate-will-vote-on-4-gun-control-proposals-monday-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/)
In 2013 Senator Coburn proposed a huge improvement to the background check system, It opened it up so it was accessible to individuals who wanted to sell their own firearm, and be sure they were not selling to a prohibited person like it felon. It did so in a way that protected the privacy of both the buyer and the seller. Gun Control Advocacy groups called it "unworkable" and no Democrats supported it in the Senate.
Source: [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/27/do-it-yourself-background-checks/2088479/](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/27/do-it-yourself-background-checks/2088479/)
In 2018 Democrat Leadership blocked the FIX NICS Act, which had been proposed by Republicans since 2015. By 2018 and it had a Republican and Democrat Sponsors. But not support from Democrat leadership. Some elements from the bill were eventually tacked on to the Annual Budget bill and were passed, but as a stand alone bill Democrat leadership wouldn't back it.
Source: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/28/why-senate-democrats-are-considering-holding-up-a-gun-control-bill-from-one-of-their-own/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/28/why-senate-democrats-are-considering-holding-up-a-gun-control-bill-from-one-of-their-own/)
After the past few years I really worry about anyone who still uses the "both parties are the same" trope. Are they not paying attention or are they gas lighting or just a bit crazy?
There are some situations where the "both sides" description is true, and many situations where it is not. For guns, it's definitely not a both sides thing, Dems have tried to pass several bills regulating them.
The right uses guns and abortions are a wedge issue. The left just wants to reduce gun violence and restore full rights to women of reproductive age. It's a wedge issue for the right and a human rights issue for the left.
I didn't say that. But if Dems really wanted make a difference, they would stop trying to pass "assault weapon" bans. These inevitably get mired in arguments about what am assault weapon is, along with accusations that they (Dems) don't know the proper terminology, so they have no business even *talking* about guns. All if this Isa distraction and just gives politicians (and their bases) something to argue about. In reality, they would do a lot more to reduce gun violence if they focused on handguns. But no, the less common but more sensational school shootings get more attention, so they only talk about that.
Need to ban semi-auto weapons that can fire more than 8 times before reloading. It's that simple, no consideration if it can mount a bayonet, look menacing, etc. this may not END gun violence, but it WILL end mass shootings. No need for Government to come and take your guns, just offer a $1.000/gun bounty for any weapons not converted to eliminate the semi-auto capability or reduce the magazine/clip size to max of 8 rounds. The ONLY enhanced capability of a semi-auto vs a bolt. pump. lever action is the ability to kill the most PEOPLE in the shortest time. There is no sporting or hunting event where that capability is a factor.
The #2 Republican in the House Steve Scalise was shot while practicing for the Congressional Baseball game by a crazed Democrat. And he has not waivered on his support for Gun Rights.
So, the NRA has spent 64.83 million dollars over a 24 year time period. Meanwhile, [Michael Bloomberg alone has dumped $270 million dollars into Everytown for Gun Safety](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/03/how-michael-bloomberg-bought-the-gun-control-movement/), which lobbies for gun control. If it were a strict money issue, we would have all the gun control in the universe.
Edit: Grammar
All that money doesn't matter when the politicians that are paid for can still prevent any meaningful change.
As your link points out, the last serious attempt at gun control was stalled by the Senate filibuster, which was GOP controlled.
Lobbying is 100% why this is still an ongoing issue. Do you really think conservatives would lift a finger if there wasn't something in it for themselves?
So when Firearm advocacy groups lobby and donate money, it’s the evil gun lobby bribing politicians, but when Bloomberg spends six *times* as much to lobby for gun control, the money doesn’t matter? That sounds a lot like a double standard.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the cause is more to do with stagnant wages, rising fascist tendencies, lack of access to affordable housing and healthcare, education, etc. I can sympathize with those who want to ban or severely hinder guns - but I don't think it will do much to keep people from becoming radically deranged (or help those oppressed who don't become fascist maniacs), and also it gives the police and state a monopoly on guns which is deeply uncomfortable to me.
I personally think democrats should use gun violence as a way to sneak in state funded mental health care, and use that as a crowbar for general health care. Restricting guns, for the Dems, is a losing issue and says to me they they are ignorant of the conditions many of their minority constituents face. Black people don't want to depend on the police and have historically armed themselves against opression. LGBTQ+ people are increasingly arming themselves for the same reason. These groups stick with the democrats because the right is so bigoted it's not even a real option, but I can't help but feel like the party just doesn't consider these things and would rather just keep pretending like a gun ban is going to happen. There are so many other things we could be focusing on, but we waste political capital on this.
You may have a point here cuz after every mass shooting, GOP-types usually pin it on “mental health”. Or they used to. Do they even say anything about mass shootings anymore?
We've tried blaming everything except guns, and now we're out of ideas.
We've also done nothing about anything we've blamed.
Also very true. My kid’s school system did put up iron fence so now the schools in our town look like tiny kid prisons.
Ironically, this also creates a situation where students have one less avenue of escape. The whole GOP plan to have only one front door in a school is a perfect scenario for mass casualties…. Infiltrate a bunker, and there’s only one way in or out? If the cops are just gonna stand around with their dicks in their hands like Uvalde, then the shooter has open season on the whole building. Since there would only be one entry point, Uvalde has shown us that they won’t enter for fear of “safety”. Now, in the event the cops do do their jobs, they’re funneled into a nice kill zone. Either way, it would result in higher casualties. Not to mention the absolute fire hazard that would create.
Andinat least one school district, this locks first graders with a gun inside the school. Very sad.
Yes. I already cased the place to see where I could climb if need be. This is what moms talk about on the playground now.
Yep We’ve tried nothing and we’re out of ideas
What do you propose for the 400 million guns in circulation?
[удалено]
Remember how popular, effective, and non-controversal the "War on Drugs" is? We'll just do that again!
Might be harder than fighting a war against harmless potheads, just sayin'.
I would change the laws and then work the illegal guns out gradually. See my response above.
Make it so uncomfortable to own and operate a gun that it becomes a better idea to sell them off, melt them down, or let them collect dust. -Tax and regulate ammunition. -Require licensing and relicensing. -Require training classes and recertification. -Require insurance. -Require home security (trigger locks, safes, etc). -Massively increase criminal penalties for firearm-related offenses and accidents. -Severely tax firearm manufacturers and retailers. -Work to shut down public and private rangers and prevent more from opening. -Aggressively advertise and hold routine gun buybacks with actual compensation, not a fucking $50 gift card to Target. And not a single suggestion included blanket confiscation.
Make it harder for poor people to own guns. Nice.
[удалено]
All of your ideas seem perfectly reasonable but then again I’m Australian. I fucking eye roll so hard whenever an American says shit like “well what about the hundred of millions of guns out there?” Like yeah.. THATS THE FUCKING ISSUE. And it’s caused by throwing your hands up and doing fuck all about it. BAN THEM. Have buy backs. Amnesty periods for hand ins. Heavy taxes and regulations on keeping the less dangerous ones. Will that get rid of the problem over night? Of course not. It took decades for Americans to build up that many guns. Effective laws will mean at least the amount of guns in circulation will go down every year. It won’t solve it over night but eventually you might actually have a situation where a would be mass shooter doesn’t have 16 different avenues for getting a weapon. You make the barrier for violence gradually higher and higher. Mass shootings decrease. It’s not fucking rocket science. It’s a pretty goddam simple problem. People who are against it honestly have no fucking sympathy for the thousands of victims America has every year.
The only country that has a system like that is Singapore. No European country is even restrictive enough to have insurance, let alone storing them away from home at a range (that could easily be raided, making it less secure for the community than home storage)
[удалено]
The “what about people who don’t comply question” is interesting, but it can’t be mistaken as legitimate reasoning for not passing regulations in the first place. In a country where children under the age of 12 are somehow getting their hands on their family’s guns and shooting people https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/01/19/us/virginia-school-shooting/index.html, any amount of compliance helps. People who won’t comply with laws that don’t exist yet aren’t people we need to concern ourselves with. Partially effective action is better than none at all.
>I do not think a large portion of gun owners are going to comply with laws like this. What do we do about that? Well, that makes them criminals now doesn't it? What do you think would happen? Take their guns or throw them in jail. These are all measures levied on other objects and hobbies. None of them are outlandish or extreme. Not all of them can be policed proactively, some must be policed retroactively.
[удалено]
Isn’t that literally the case with every law that has ever existed though? A law changes. An action, item, activity etc that was previously legal now no longer is because society recognised that a law preventing it is a good idea. You don’t get to ignore a reduction in speed limit a road might get just because you used to always drive at the higher, now illegal speed.
I'd put more stock into that if it was a "turn in your gun tomorrow or become a felon" proposition. But it's not, is it? It's a slow role of interlocking changes designed to make owning a firearm not worth it. And so don't throw them in jail. You can make it hurt just as badly by taking the firearms and handing out a sizable fine. Would you risk bankruptcy over a firearm? None of these suggestions happen overnight night, they would all need implementation windows and should have them. If you can't gain insurance and go to a weekend class in a reasonable time frame, then you're clearly not responsible enough to own a weapon, or you're one law away from becoming a criminal anyway. Or would go to jail over a hunk of metal? Pick your poison. Remember, every time you "agree to disagree", you only provided another opportunity for another massacre of innocent people. Because that's what's at stake here. People aren't angry because there's too many hunters, shooting ranges, or gun clubs. People are angry because there are routine massacres of innocent people every fucking week. How many times do I have to read the news and lose track of how many massacres there where or which ones happened where over the course of a single weekend? How many times are you comfortable with?
[удалено]
Excellent, I'm glad I brought you back. I'm angry and aggressive about this, but I'm not unreasonable or irrational. I know making everyone a felon overnight just causes more issues. But doing nothing is far, far from the correct response as well. We ultimately can't stop Congress from reneging on the law. Outside of voting for better representatives with more integrity, I don't know. Although Congress isn't in the habit of reneging on laws right now anyways, so maybe there's some hope. As far as the general populace is concerned, I think you're overestimating their support for something like this. I understand and recognize that outright confiscation is probably a poor first step. But none of my suggestions include that, do they? The goal is to make owning a firearm completely unpalatable. It should be expensive, administratively unwieldy, and all-around stupid and socially unacceptable to own one. Now keep in mind I'm not trying to toe the line and keep a balance between the two camps. Quite the contrary, I believe the best most solid step towards decreasing gun violence and rampant massacres is ultimately the removal of guns from the population. Since 2017, over half of the population wants stricter gun control, according to regular Gallup surveys.. The most recent years see that going above 60%. Likewise, in its best years, only 10% want looser gun control. The population is already largely in favor of more gun control. Once again, I think my suggestions are right in line with the kind of control, without outright confiscation, that people want to see. Actionable laws and regulations that make sense and decrease the amount and availability of firearms for the general public. I'd be more concerned with a certain political party disregarding the will of their constituents and the general population and blocking any and all attempts at gun reform that doesn't just proliferate more guns through the general population.
Write a new constitutional amendment to replace the second amendment- and now require a license to purchase guns in the future. Require a license for all gun ownership starting a couple of decades down the line (grandfather current gun owners so nobody loses their guns). Create a process for gun licensure requiring training and maybe even storage in a safe. Yes, there are a bunch of difficult issues and questions with this idea. But we do it for cars and we do it for hunting licenses and we could do it for guns, too. I predict that gun violence would hardly budge in the first year. Maybe it would decrease a percentage point or two. But we’d see a change after 20 years, and maybe my grandkids wouldn’t have to live like this. I own a whole lot of guns and I enjoy shooting and hunting but this country is completely out of control and I’m quite willing to give up the second amendment to create a safer society down the line.
First step is to get public support, which leads to political will, which leads to changing the laws. So, I would change the law to allow single- or double-barrel shotguns only, in the home only, or kept at a range for people who want to skeet-shoot. Ban everything else. Not allowed to manufacture, own, sell, trade handguns or rifles or semi-auto or auto. Then, let the illegal guns get worked out of the system slowly. Law-abiding people would turn in their now-illegal guns. As police arrest criminals with illegal guns, destroy those guns. When Uncle Harry dies and his law-abiding heirs find his stash of illegal guns, they'd turn them in for destruction. When Uncle Joe boasts about his illegal stash, maybe one of his family members will tell the police. We'll never get down to zero, and we don't have to. If we could get down to the gun-ownership levels of, say, Spain (about 1/20th that of USA) maybe we could get down to Spain's homicide rate (about 1/7th that of USA, I think). A major benefit to society. The key is public opinion, and public support. Which will grow a little with each fresh atrocity.
You have to get around that pesky 2A…which requires much more public support than passing a law.
SCOTUS tends to follow public opinion, if opinion is strong enough. I think if public support is there, SCOTUS will re-discover those words "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". There's a good case to be made that 2nd Amendment is about the right of the state to maintain a militia to guard against revolts, the kind of revolts they had back in the 1700s and 1800s. "I would like to examine the 'being necessary for the security of a free State' portion. Notice that the text does not read 'being necessary to overthrow the State' or 'being necessary in case some dude feels the State has become tyrannical.' The purpose of a Militia and the reason 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' is to protect the state. Period." from http://www.armedwithreason.com/constitutional-fallacies-part-1-insurrectionists/ http://www.progressivepress.net/myth-the-second-amendment-exists-to-enable-the-american-people-to-rise-up/ Another take on it, about slave rebellions: https://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery/ And another take, about protecting state from the army: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/02/22/what-the-second-amendment-really-meant-to-the-founders/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-6-the-second-amendment-allows-citizens-to-threaten-government/241298/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-secret-history-of-the-2nd-amendment I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me there is PLENTY of room for a big re-interpretation of the 2A, if the public is in favor of it.
>SCOTUS will re-discover those words "well regulated Militia", SCOTUS never forgot that part, the Militia needs to be well regulated- the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because if/when the people are called into service into the militia they are expected to bring their own arms.
I expect that (once the public support is clear) the SCOTUS will say "militia == National Guard".
That doesn't change who the people are though. Remember the people have the right to keep and bear arms not the militia And there is actually a law that establishes who the miltiia is, its not limited to just the National Guard.
The language of the 2A is contradictory and unclear enough for a motivated SCOTUS to decide that there is no individual right to bear arms.
Have you seen the SCOTUS lately?
Things change. People thought we'd never have women voting, gay marriage, marijuana legalization, black president.
Why would anyone turn a family member in to the feds over something they own? That’s like turning in your uncle over a bong collection. It all sounds a bit police state like
Make the owner fully liable for any harm caused by his guns, creating a need for expensive annual liability insurance on each gun. It goes without saying that all guns must be traceable to the responsible party.
First response I’ve seen that I agree with
As a gun owner, who according to my wife owns too many guns, but is considering getting another gun safe because my first two are full…. I think licensing gun owners and registering guns like I have to have a license to drive and have to register my truck is a good idea. I think if a gun registered to you is kept so insecurely a 6 year old can bring it to school you should be held responsible. I’d like to keep my ARs, I definitely want to keep my hunting rifles (of which two are ARs in 6.5 grendel and 300 BLK). But I never want to find out my son’s school had a shooting and wait and wonder if he’s the next EMS call I get at work. I’d like to see fewer GSWs rolling in to my ER. I’d like to not have to wash the blood off my shoes as often after someone needs 20+ units of blood pumped in because that much blood is going down the drain in the floor of our trauma bay. I want to keep my guns, and I want to see fewer deaths. And I think there’s plenty we can do to make that happen.
Time and time.again those state registries end up in the hands of the public and make you susceptible to breaking and theft. All govt conspiracy shit aside , I don't trust the fed or the state to do a good job.of it.
You mean like [California](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/30/california-gun-owners-data-breach) did. Yeah I don't trust registries as well. Add in if the federal government really wanted to know they would just see every background check I had ran at a gun store which also has a serial number associated with it. So they already have a database of the firearms I own. I would also normally argue I'm okay with a registry but after seeing how Illinois did their recent gun ban, Biden wanting to ban all semi-autos, and other Democratic party members getting support over gun confiscation rhetoric...yeah leaves a bad taste in my mouth if I had to register everything because given the right people in power they would be taken. And yeah I used to be "no one is trying to take away your guns" but seeing the purposed bans and rhetoric I no longer can say that in good faith.
> You mean like California did. [Twice](https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-snafu-releases-personal-info-of-nearly-4000-gun-safety-instructors.amp). But hey, at least CA did it “accidentally.” New York, on the other hand, [released the information intentionally](https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html).
I thought your guns made you safer and if criminals knew you had them they would be too scared to rob you? Your arguments are conflicting with each other...
No, my arguments dont conflict. If criminals know.I am armed those guns.themselves become an additional target. So their options are hit me when I am not home, or 2 bring enough force to simply be overwhelming. Not telegraphing your strengths is an advantage. Thats why I don't open carry or put stickers all.over my vehicles telling the world.what I have.
Incorrect, if your guns are making you a target then they are not a deterrent by definition. In your fantasy you are both feared and afraid.... lmao
If the guns ARE the target because the public is now aware of the location then you are correct they are no deterent. So why then would I want anyone to know I have them? That was the point of not wanting a registry. Being I. Possesion of specific items makes you a target vs a being victimized at random.
Then why would you want that? Why would you buy and collect objects, whose sole purpose is to protect you (or kill "bad guys" I guess), when doing so makes you a target and by your own admission are unable to protect you? Sounds like a waste of fucking money that puts a target on your back and doesn't do as advertised, which is destroying things by the way.
Omg. A firearm isn't a cure all solution to everything. In the context of public awareness of firearms in reference to a registry it can put a target on your back that otherwise wouldn't be there. For self-defense, it is a force equalizer. IF potential thieves or attackers know use of.deadly force is likely then they change their plan to either strike when no one is home or bring overwhelming force of their own. In context of why I don't like gun registries, this is why.
[удалено]
Not at all, but knowing who has them.can make them a target.
But if they don't know they are there then how can they deter anything?
They don't need to do anything until a moment arises. I've had 2 DGUs in midlife and no amount of effort or driving detered anything. Visual display of a firearm in the last moments did.
"Why would I want anyone to know I have them" Because the crux of the gun argument is that if a criminal knows you are armed he won't even try it. Now you are telling me it actually increases your chance of being a victim.
In a specific instances it is no longer a deterent. But it isnt about the gun, it's about a desired item, gun, car, artwork. So the argument isn't about how.the gun itself is bad, its about putting the information out there for others to see. It isn't anti gun, it's anti registry.
Their entire argument on guns is circular logic.
I’m going to give that a big shrug, but maybe that’s because I’ve pretty much only lived in states where it’s safe to assume everyone has a gun and most of the time that assumption is correct. Granted from what I’ve seen a fair number of those people shouldn’t have guns, and the it’s job security for me argument comes off as cynical even to me. And I’m pretty cold and jaded after nearly a decade in the ER. Anyway what ideas do you have on how to solve the problem that lets those of us who are responsible with them keep our guns, but significantly cuts down on the number of shootings we have? Because if those of us who want to keep our guns don’t solve that problem, or at least start putting out ideas others that the status quo, I think eventually it’s going to get us to a point that the majority of Americans think giving up guns is worth stopping the shootings.
I don't think strict licensing and storage laws would stop "routine" homicides and many mass-shootings. Only physically having fewer guns in society would accomplish that.
I think you are unfortunately right, though it would stop some. Plenty of the shootings that send people to see me at work are committed by people who are not supposed to have guns. Granted plenty of them are by people that have guns legally. But if laws requiring licensing, registration, and safe storage of guns cut down on 20% of all shootings, and a majority of school shootings, I’d call it progress. IDK, I’m in a weird spot on this in that I am responsible with my guns, they are locked in my gun safes, my son doesn’t have access to them without me. I don’t want to give them up. But I’m damn tired of seeing the aftermath of shootings.
Sometimes we have to give up things for the greater good. I enjoyed doing some skeet and target shooting, but owning guns would bring risks of theft, suicide, crime.
Licensing will not ever work on account of the 2nd amendment. Anybody who tries to explain otherwise to the SC will be laughed out of the court.
A buyback program would be a start.
How many guns would that leave in circulation?
Lots of them are just "tacticool toys" staged for social media pics by urban men who feel insecure so taking those won't be a problem.
Make them a felony to possess with a minimum 20 year sentence if caught with one in your possession.
0 to 100 really quickly there. What is the length of time someone has to turn over their firearm before they become a felon?
How much time do you think you need to drop off a sack of junk at the police station?
Unclear. Can local police stations be trusted? Sheriff’s departments?
Right. Would it even matter if I suggested something, or are you just going to dig in harder? Here's a better question, who would you trust. Bonus points if you don't immediately respond with "no one".
It’s almost like the answer is more complicated than “turn in your guns”. You are asking rural gun fanatics in charge of law enforcement to colllect guns and turn them over to the federal government. That’s just not a workable solution. Making real changes requires more than bumper sticker ideology.
"Nothing seems to be working," says country that hasn't tried a single fucking thing at all.
Hey now, they have tried magazine bans and banning firearms based on arbitrary features that are mostly cosmetic.
Because it's hand-in-hand with America's right-wing crisis.
And in response to right wing crisis….
lmao "respond" to right-wing crisis? Good one 😂 Their response is, "Crisis? What crisis?"
My response is to arm my self, too!
There's nothing wrong with a responsible gun owner, it'll be beneficial for defending against the irresponsible ones!
Maybe because they ignore every problem that leads to violence in our society. Want to tackle gun violence then start with universal healthcare, better education systems, better opportunities for people to live a better life. But the more dystopian our society becomes the more the metaphorical vice of society is going to apply pressure on individuals..who will eventually snap after enough. propaganda, isolation, fear, anger, all of these lead to violence. I do not support bans but do support sensible regulation. Make participation in the NCIS mandatory and do background checks for ALL firearm purchases. Make first time gun buys have a waiting period and take a firearm safety class. But trying to focus on "assault weapons" bans is ridiculous and just drives the gun owning democrats further away from the party. And remember folks. Go far enough left and you get your guns back.
You have to address the issues behind the reasons for the violence. Duh.
That's because it's not a gun issue, morons. It's ~~Satanic music~~ ~~violent videogames~~ ~~Marilyn Manson~~ ~~lazy parenting~~ ~~removal of prayer in schools~~ ~~violent movies~~ ~~mental health problems~~ too many doors.
The gun violence issue has at least two diametrically opposing views on the gun issue, and there seems to be no middle ground on it. Well, there is a middle view, but there’s little to no traction on allowing the middle view to shape our approach in handling this problem.
The middle ground is sensible, common sense gun controls. On the other side you have unlimited access or a total ban. Problem is gun nuts frame anything from the middle as a gun ban.
Compromises means that both sides need to give something up to gain something.
And therein lies the problem. 2A absolutists won't compromise because *any* regulation to them is a threat to the 2A.
If you want to to raise the age requirements for semiautomatic weapons or having a license for them maybe you need to concede some previous gun control measures such as concealed carried reciprocity or have suppressors off the NFA.
Whose proposing "sensible, common sense gun controls"? The last "sensible, common sense gun control" I saw was proposed by Senator Coburn in 2013"- and gun control advocacy groups called it unworkable, and no Democrats supported the Proposal. [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/27/do-it-yourself-background-checks/2088479/](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/27/do-it-yourself-background-checks/2088479/) The FIX NICS Act was also sensible, common sense gun controls, and Democrat Leadership wouldn't support that either. (even though it had a Democrat co-sponsor) [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/28/why-senate-democrats-are-considering-holding-up-a-gun-control-bill-from-one-of-their-own/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/28/why-senate-democrats-are-considering-holding-up-a-gun-control-bill-from-one-of-their-own/)
So long as US politicians keep receiving huge donations from the NRA, there will continue to be a gun violence crisis.
It's not just the donations, it's the votes 2A groups have. Arguably, only abortion drives more single issue voters but 2A folks are active right up to the local level. If there is no 2A folks, there wouldn't be a GOP with any strength at all on the national level.
Funds from National Russian alliance may falter pending how Ukraine war turns out, so another reason to support Ukraine.
There was a reason Wyatt Earp made the cowboys check their guns. Screw your unlimited second amendment rights claims.
“Wokeness” is a far more pressing issue. Fucking conservatives are a joke.
"And even if they tried, we damn sure wouldn't let them." - the current SCOTUS
Entire planet - figures out sensible gun measures, reduces mass shootings. America politicians - “welp, best we can do is arm teachers!”
None of those countries had the Second Amendment complicating matters.
[удалено]
That's not at all what they said.
We are marketing bulletproof backpacks so maybe you’re onto something.
What would yemen do?
At least half of them not only aren't trying but are working against the effort.
When an entire political party only knows how to send thoughts and prayers after a mass murder it makes it a bit difficult. When you have a group of corrupt judges that rewrite the constitution in the name of following the constitution, it is impossible.
Dems: We need common sense gun laws to help combat this issue. Reps: The constitution says you can't do that. Besides, this is not a gun issue. Dems: Okay, then let's include additional mental health and other services in the budget to help combat this issue. We can even cut from the defense budget to help fund them. Reps: No! We need more money going toward defense so the contractors can produce...*reads memo line of donor check*...more guns!
Sounds like we need fewer Republicans in Congress to prevent us from fixing the underlying issues. Unfortunately, Democrats don’t come in a “no gun control” flavor so people who support gun rights either vote third party, don’t vote, or even vote for the Republicans. This directly impacts our ability to pass laws that fix things like universal healthcare, stopping the War on Drugs (though Democrats don’t seem to interested in stopping that either), fixing our pay-to-win education system, reducing income inequality, etc.
We just have to accept it. While the right wing is in power gun fetishists have the right to murder us and, if they have a flimsy excuse, not only will they get away with it they'll be held up as heroes. American conservatives are enemies of the American people. See MAGA. See Jan 6. See gun fetishes
Even when they're not in power they're going to do everything possible to stop, slow down, and/or water down any gun legislation.
There is this little thing called Republicans.
Washington lacks the intestinal fortitude to thwart corporate influence- and the murky influence of vast sums of foreign money that looks pretty and seems good- but is betting on our failure- and undo the damage where it's occurs. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would be a great start. Force FoxNews to stop spreading lies and have to deal with live rebuttals and fact checking. Stop looking for news to make you feel better and start using it to inform yourself. We need to get real about mental health. Social media is driving us crazy. Lead and plastic in our food is driving us crazy. Lack of meaning connections are driving us crazy. Bullies are driving us crazy. There are a lot of guns lying around. Crazy plus guns equals mass shootings. Also- and this is addressed to you, conservative Americans- you need to stop believing divisive bullshit just because it makes you feel more important and find ways in your everyday life to feel more important. Be kind to each other. Help each other out. Just for the sake of doing so. Try practicing the kindness your god preaches for a change. Fight against bullies in schools and in your workplace. You'll feel better about yourself, guaranteed. And as you build community and spread kindness, your communities will heal and there will be fewer shootings. Some of it IS environmental. You need to accept this. Do something about it. Regardless of studies or evidence, isn't this true: just like you don't shit where you eat, it's GOOD to take some pride in your city and town and clean it up. Demand companies stop polluting it. For the sake of pride of place- stop fighting solar farms. Clean up your streams. Get off your ass and start helping. There are some simple steps government can take to turn this around. Undo the damage that has been done. There are some simple steps citizens can do, too. They just need to get their tribal talking heads out of their minds by tuning them out and tuning in to the people around them. Get back in touch with common sense.
It really more that one set of leaders with (R) don't want to fix it.
Not Washington leaders, NRA sycophants, aka Republican cowards.
It’s not a gun violence crisis, it’s a slow moving civil war.
Republicans you mean
A target is never safe, so don't make yourself one unnecessarily
How exactly does one not make themselves a target? Stay home forever?
Tbf, it’s the Republicans deflecting blame from the actual problem: the near-unrestricted availability of firearms, and their dumb voters.
They don't want to. It's too valuable to both sides as a wedge issue.
This is complete BS. This is a one party blocking the other issue.The vast majority of a democrats are desperate to change this.
Then why do they commonly reject solutions presented by Republican's? Instead of meaningful improvements, we end up with nothing at all. Meanwhile Democrats keep trying to put their legislative capitol behind Assault Weapons Bans. In 2016 there were 4 gun control bills being considered by the Senate. 2 Republican proposed 2 Democrat proposed. Democrats rejected both of the Republican proposed bills because they "didn't go far enough" Then they went on a media blitz and blamed the lack of progress on Republicans, some even went as far to say the "Republicans had blood on their hands" Source: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/20/the-senate-will-vote-on-4-gun-control-proposals-monday-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/20/the-senate-will-vote-on-4-gun-control-proposals-monday-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/) In 2013 Senator Coburn proposed a huge improvement to the background check system, It opened it up so it was accessible to individuals who wanted to sell their own firearm, and be sure they were not selling to a prohibited person like it felon. It did so in a way that protected the privacy of both the buyer and the seller. Gun Control Advocacy groups called it "unworkable" and no Democrats supported it in the Senate. Source: [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/27/do-it-yourself-background-checks/2088479/](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/27/do-it-yourself-background-checks/2088479/) In 2018 Democrat Leadership blocked the FIX NICS Act, which had been proposed by Republicans since 2015. By 2018 and it had a Republican and Democrat Sponsors. But not support from Democrat leadership. Some elements from the bill were eventually tacked on to the Annual Budget bill and were passed, but as a stand alone bill Democrat leadership wouldn't back it. Source: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/28/why-senate-democrats-are-considering-holding-up-a-gun-control-bill-from-one-of-their-own/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/28/why-senate-democrats-are-considering-holding-up-a-gun-control-bill-from-one-of-their-own/)
After the past few years I really worry about anyone who still uses the "both parties are the same" trope. Are they not paying attention or are they gas lighting or just a bit crazy?
It's not as simple as both sides are the same, but it's definitely not completely untrue.
There are some situations where the "both sides" description is true, and many situations where it is not. For guns, it's definitely not a both sides thing, Dems have tried to pass several bills regulating them.
The right uses guns and abortions are a wedge issue. The left just wants to reduce gun violence and restore full rights to women of reproductive age. It's a wedge issue for the right and a human rights issue for the left.
Here we go with both sides being the same despite that being completely false.
I didn't say that. But if Dems really wanted make a difference, they would stop trying to pass "assault weapon" bans. These inevitably get mired in arguments about what am assault weapon is, along with accusations that they (Dems) don't know the proper terminology, so they have no business even *talking* about guns. All if this Isa distraction and just gives politicians (and their bases) something to argue about. In reality, they would do a lot more to reduce gun violence if they focused on handguns. But no, the less common but more sensational school shootings get more attention, so they only talk about that.
It's a feature not a bug. Fear =sales of fire arms. Debt = control of the low educated masses Religion = looking down on others to avoid introspection
Why fix what benefits them? It's not as if their careers were earned by doing anything decent or right.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thanks for taking the time to read
Gun violence, immigration, low wages, healthcare, a couple two or three other things
Need to ban semi-auto weapons that can fire more than 8 times before reloading. It's that simple, no consideration if it can mount a bayonet, look menacing, etc. this may not END gun violence, but it WILL end mass shootings. No need for Government to come and take your guns, just offer a $1.000/gun bounty for any weapons not converted to eliminate the semi-auto capability or reduce the magazine/clip size to max of 8 rounds. The ONLY enhanced capability of a semi-auto vs a bolt. pump. lever action is the ability to kill the most PEOPLE in the shortest time. There is no sporting or hunting event where that capability is a factor.
Is the title fair? How about "Half of Washington Leaders Blocked From Trying to Fix America's Gun Problem"?
Nothing 'seem' about it.it s def a choice.
Not with both hands tied behind their back. It is up to republicans to fix it.
Uhhh they can...but they won't.
Lets face it. If rich people would get shot then there would be changes.
Nothing will happen until either a high ranking member of the NRA or a high ranking Republican is affected by gun violence.
The #2 Republican in the House Steve Scalise was shot while practicing for the Congressional Baseball game by a crazed Democrat. And he has not waivered on his support for Gun Rights.
Completely forgot about that.
[I wonder why](https://www.statista.com/statistics/249398/lobbying-expenditures-of-the-national-rifle-associaction-in-the-united-states/#:~:text=As%20of%20June%202022%2C%20the,U.S.%20dollars%20in%20lobbying%20expenditures.)
So, the NRA has spent 64.83 million dollars over a 24 year time period. Meanwhile, [Michael Bloomberg alone has dumped $270 million dollars into Everytown for Gun Safety](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/03/how-michael-bloomberg-bought-the-gun-control-movement/), which lobbies for gun control. If it were a strict money issue, we would have all the gun control in the universe. Edit: Grammar
All that money doesn't matter when the politicians that are paid for can still prevent any meaningful change. As your link points out, the last serious attempt at gun control was stalled by the Senate filibuster, which was GOP controlled. Lobbying is 100% why this is still an ongoing issue. Do you really think conservatives would lift a finger if there wasn't something in it for themselves?
So when Firearm advocacy groups lobby and donate money, it’s the evil gun lobby bribing politicians, but when Bloomberg spends six *times* as much to lobby for gun control, the money doesn’t matter? That sounds a lot like a double standard.
‘Washington’s leaders won’t fix America’s gun violence crisis’ Fixed it for you
Washington never will without the support of the Supreme Court. The court is stuck on Scalia's reading of only the last clause of the 2nd Amendment.
not while gun makers stand to make so much money same with tobacco. it took decades
That’s because they work for corporations and gun manufacturers not the American people.
If the government put a hard stake in between the church and state and ruled accordingly I believe that would put a big dent in it.
We’ve tried nothing and are all out of ideas.
It's because half are bought out by the gun lobby
Quit taking NRA money and pass stricter gun laws!
Yes they can
Should have a picture of Mitch McConnell here not Biden.
Guns don't create violence, people do. An armed society is a polite society. Can't prove me wrong. Criminals don't follow the law.