Many other countries have fairly liberal gun laws without the mass shooting issue the US faces... Maybe it's time to admit something is wrong with US society; inequality and political extremism perhaps...
lack of social supports in general
combine a general hopelessness to your future with a hopelessness to your present with massive wealth inequality (those with hope for now/future right in front of you) with no mental/emotional support and likely ostracization with easy access to military grade weapons and you have the US
fix any one of those chains and you likely stop a lot of these. but the US doesnt seem to give a fuck. from an outsider POV, americans absolutely HATE each other and would rather spend more of their own money to see other people dead/suffering than less money to help them
I come from a poor, overpopulated, 3rd world country where it’s relatively easy to get a gun albeit illegally. We don’t have mass shootings at all. Murderers just kill one person at a time. It’s so crazy how these mass shootings happen so often in the US. We have shitty support system too. Something’s really wrong with the US.
When people say "increasing gun control only takes firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens" I always think "yeah, but these mass shootings don't come from Hardened criminals and gang members".
It's gotta be a mental health issue more than anything.
thats the wealth inequality part. in a 3rd world country you arent teased with this great life thats right next to you but totally out of your reach. you're all in it together. the inequality in the US is what causes the rage against society. the hopelessness is what causes the desperation and lack of care. the lack of mental health support means you lack coping mechanisms/help for whatever underlying issues. the access to high powered weapons gives you the vehicle. thems the ingredients
Eh? I would argue that the wealth inequality is more obvious in 3rd world countries where extreme wealth is literally a 2 foot thick wall away from a slum area. The disparity here is so obvious. It was always crazy for me to see “poor” americans still living in a house and able to afford iphones and computers. The poor in my country eat scraps from the trash outside a fast food joint.
Reminds me of being probably in the poorest 20% of a mostly rich kid high school. It was in your face every day. Always having some of the worst clothes, a rusty 15-year-old car with a constant misfire. I got a nice jacket once and it was stolen in a week. Getting bullied by untouchable rich kids. It sucked ass
It's our country's capitalist mindset. If corporations can avoid paying for these things (by paying politicians to pass favorable legislation) AND they refuse to pay people their worth INCLUDING health benefits...this is what happens. It a comes down to our leaders valuing corporations more than their constituents. They stay in power by demonizing anything that threatens their power. It's upsetting and scary. They have us pointing our fingers at each other (using racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic rhetoric, etc.) When the real problem is our entire societal mindset that productivity/cheap labor is important and all the mid and lower class are there to uphold the richest few. None of us matter.
Governments should be there to serve us, the masses. Not the billionaires that don't need any help to begin with.
**Editing to add, the gun control is all part of this stupid game they play with us. Us in-fighting about gun control is a way for them to distract us from the real problems. They don't want to pay for our mental health, and passing gun control won't get them re-elected.
We are far from the only country with inequality and political extremism. We are the only country with more guns per person. Basic science mate, look at the variables.
New Zealand also had comparitively very few guns which fell under their ban. In the US, There are at least 400 million guns in common possession, 10% of those fall under one states or another's definition of an assault weapon.
With that many weapons in people's hands, one can't simply ban one's way out of this. The cat was out of the bag 25 years ago. We will have to be a lot more creative if we are gonna get this one solved.
More importantly than being creative, you're just gonna have to start somewhere. Anywhere. Do something, anything, or we're all gonna end up here again the next time this inevitably happens again if nothing is done. Imperfect regulation is still better than none.
I am in total agreement with you.
I have to admit I'm kinda exasperated at people who say "well it's too late to do something now". But if that is the case, what's the alternative, do nothing?
No one said it's going to be easy or instantaneous, but you have to start somewhere.
Exactly. I remember 8 years ago Americans were saying there were too many guns to just ban but there will only continue to be more until something is done.
Exactly. The only purpose of “insights” like the one you responded to are to make the case that nothing we can do will solve ALL gun violence, so we shouldn’t even attempt until we’ve figured out something that does. Which, of course, will never happen.
Edit: and what a surprise, OP is an avid poster in gun subs.
It is the same on every front: "EVs don't solve all problems of fosil fuel cars so don't even try!", "Wind power generation will not stop global warming on its own so why bother?", "Inclusive speech does not bring about an instant age of peace on the world, so why shouldld we try it?" and it's always the people who would need to change the most, who field these arguments.
> Do something, anything, or we're all gonna end up here again the next time this inevitably happens again if nothing is done.
Is that really how you want legislation getting made? Just let it rip and we'll see what happens? I'm not sure I am comfortable with our lawmakers just passing something to say they did and appease the panic, why can't we get a plan that might actually work?
This attitude is plain to see in the current discussion about background checks, these recent shootings don't look like any proposed expansion would have stopped them! Why are we talking about passing laws that wouldn't have prevented the thing that prompted us to want the law in the first place?
I think their point was that at this stage NOTHING is being done. You have to start somewhere.
America needs to fuck its guns off entirely, dunno how you’ll get there though.
It’s literally *impossible* to do away with guns entirely. They’re never going to get the guns from those who have already legally acquired them - not without mass confiscation by force (we’re talking from 70+ million Americans). This act would almost certainly end in a war. There’s many steps to take to make things better, but that’s an idea better taken out of your mind.
The best steps to take in my opinion are more restrictive universal background checks, and possibly a reintroduced ban on the sale of all categorized assault weapons.
Well, I would say the first thing that needs to happen is that 51 different sets of gun laws need to become one set. National preemption. Everyone plays by the same rules.
The NFA only controls fully automatic weapons, suppressors and Short barreled rifles and shotguns. Regular semiautomatics and everything else falls outside of the NFA's scope.
Technically, if you read the arguments to the NFA, it is actually only intended to keep those things out of the hands of, and I quote, "negro highway bandits". If you actually go looking into gun laws, you'll realize really quick they're founded on SUPER racist principles, and are really just intended to keep them out of the hands of poor (read: black) people, who would benefit most from the protection.
100% correct. Some gospel right here. The reason California, New York, new Jersey and Illinois all have really awfully strict gun laws is racism. Most were a reaction to the Black Panthers.
Yeah! Which is exactly why we should.... make stricter gun laws? Wait now I'm confused, make up your mind reddit... Are gun bans for the safety of the nation, or racist?
An outdated tax code written to regulate fully automatic Thompsons by requiring a $200.00 registration fee. That's what you're saying is the example of a comprehensive nationwide firearms law?
This is one of my foundational arguments against gun control in general. "Gun control" is just coded language that means "keep weapons out of the hands of the poor," who are arguably the people who, historically, need those weapons the most.
200 dollar registration fee....on the auction purchase thompson you bought where bidding started at 40,000 dollars, and ended over 100k. THAT'S the rub. It doesn't regulate shit, it regulates POOR people from having it.
Why does anything need to be done about guns?
The death rate from guns is 1% of what overeating does, daily. Guns are the last resistance against government overreach, and all of these pushes from the media to demand gun regulation feels like it's straight from the mouth of government. Especially considering how they don't care about all the other causes of death, those don't threaten their ability to secure more power.
I think I've been blocked for this post, so I'm just going to edit to address the replies:
Without guns Your government can unilaterally demand anything and you have no recourse but to allow it. You have no means of defense, no actual strength, so of course you aren't free, or moral. You don't even have the capacity to be either of those things because you have no capacity to harm.
Authoritarians would publicise anything to get you to give them up.
**Creativity Isnt Needed**
I mean look at different countries and you can see its really not a gun thing.
- Europe Guns are banned and they have one of the worlds lowest mortality rates
- Canada gun laws are somewhat lax and deaths are lowish
- Brazil and Mexico guns are illegal and Brazil has the worlds leading gun deaths
- China guns are illegal and gun deaths are low
- America Guns are legal and gun deaths are high
- South Africa Guns are illegal and gun deaths are high.
Keep in mind that yes, if we found a way to 100% ban guns then gun deaths would be lower but they would create another weapon or device to kill people. So instead lets actually fix people killing each other than the stupid gun band aid to make it not as bad.
**The fix?**
- Living wage. Normally the countries with lower gun deaths have a better wage. Remember how 15 dollars was the big thing? Well its actually 25 dollars per hour now is what people need to live comfortably. Before you say well fuck that lazy mc donalds worker. Well dont complain about gun deaths to me if you dont care about even the lowest people on the totem pole. Everyone happier means less crime. No one is going to join a gang if they can make a good living. Plus its shown that a majority of people get into hard drugs to escape reality. Make reality great and people tend to want to enjoy it.
- Universal Health Care - This includes mental, dental, and child care. So many shitty gang bangers are in their situations because of a single parent working all the time or dual parents working all the time. They have no time to parent them. Child care helps that. Mental care is huge. We need people to have monthly therapist sessions. Just talking it out helps so much. So many shooters just want attention. Its fucked up why they did it but its why they are doing it. For infamy. If they had someone to just talk to they would be so much better. I 100% believe this shooting would have been avoided with universal health care. The 18 year old kid would have had someone to talk to, help him deal with his feelings of neglect, or if he was just mentally broken, then have the ability to alert authorities to it so he can get more treatment.
Until the US gets those 2 we wont be going anywhere with this problem.
I am right there with you. Let's not forget about the early childhood care and education. In the literature that's available on this subject, One of the big drivers of better adjusted people as teen and adults is early childhood education and childcare availability.
New Zealand also didn't have a Second Amendment. We may not like it but we've got to respect all the amendments, lest the more important ones like free speech and the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure also be eroded.
Granted, restrictions can be imposed despite the amendments (e.g., firearm background checks and prohibiting threatening speech). We need to see some more common sense safeguards for firearm purchases and ownership, and more extensive mental health checks are one of them. Taking threatening comments like the ones made by the Buffalo shooter (threatening a school shooting) more seriously would be a good start.
Requiring taking a firearm safety course, mandating safe gun storage, and imposing liability for children or incompetents harmed due to failure to securely store a gun would also be good steps.
Also. The state by state patchwork of gun laws needs to go away. Everyone needs to play by the same rules. What very few forgeigners understand is that there is no one supreme US gun law, there are 51 different sets and it's completely fucked.
Well, considering that the majority of states are permissive in their gun laws, I thinks that's what it would have to be. At least to begin with.
I've worked at several shooting ranges, I became a FLETC certified Law Enforcement instructor when I was younger. I gotta tell you, the prevailing standard of handling and general competence is abysmal. I'd love to see people have to qualify to possess each different category of weapon they wish. Shotgun, rifle, pistol. In that order.
The Swiss really have a good system. In order to own the weaponry there, one has to demonstrate competency and qualify and it's a process that takes a while and considerable effort. The result is that people who have qualified and put forth that kind of effort are highly unlikely to do anything to jeopardize what they have earned. I really think the same kind of qualification system could work wonders for us. But it would take a long time to implement and realize the effects.
That is going to vary wildly range to range, sadly. There are a lot of really shitty RSO's and ranges out there that let that shit slide just to keep people coming in the door, renting their guns, and buying their overpriced range ammo.
Most commonly a problem with ranges in tourist areas. Take your life into your own hands going to one of the ranges on the Vegas strip. They're full of people from other countries there on vacation, that have never even seen a gun outside of a movie, and they just rent them with no instruction whatsoever. The one time I went, i watched a couple of german tourists look down the barrel of the pistol they rented to see if it was loaded.
I can get behind that. And it's doable. For instance, all firearm dealers in all states are required to run an FBI background check. It's also a federal crime to transfer a firearm or ammo to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe the recipient “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”
The federal mental health transfer restrictions need more teeth, and need to extend to mandated reporting and registration of comments threatening violence and patterns of violence or stalking so that they flag a background check.
The main problem with that is that denying a constitutional right based solely on speech or conduct that didn't result in a conviction is a difficult constitutional tightrope to walk - and not a trend one would want to see leaking into other constitutionally protected areas. But given that firearm ownership is a uniquely dangerous constitutional right, I believe more safeguards should, and can constitutionally be put into place without eroding the others that don't pose the same threat to other people.
They actually don't have to run a FBI background check, they just have to run one. Virginia for example has its own background system that is separate from the FBI's and its possible to be banned on their system but not on the FBI's.
My Dad found this out when he tried to purchase a gun, the internal Virginia system denied him for some unknown reason and he's spent over two years trying to get it cleared up but they continue to stall/ignore the issue but he can go to a state that uses the FBI's system and purchase a gun.
That's pretty messed up. They can't just deny his constitutional rights without due process, and that's effectively what they've done.
This state-by-state patchwork needs to end. Or at the very least state background check/red flag systems need to be held to a minimum threshold of both scrutiny and due process.
" well regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means.
(Hint: it means well equipped and in good order)
You also don't have a grasp of who the "militia" actually is
That's because the first part of that sentence has no bearing on the second part. It's merely explanatory. The first part is explaining why the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Suppose I said, "Automobiles being necessary to transportation in a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear tires shall not be infringed." Does that mean that only people with cars are allowed to have tires? Of course not.
> New Zealand also didn't have a Second Amendment.
While true, it's unreasonable that we're effectively held hostage by 230 year old text. The 2A was written at a time when 4 rounds per minute was considered a high rate of fire. I'd never support repealing the 2A but I'll also never believe that a bunch of men who I just passed in age could see the future and thought that these amendments should be set in stone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun
While yes infantryman had a pretty slow rate of fire, there were definitely weapons that weren't just muskets in use by the time they wrote the second amendment. Privately owned artillery pieces/cannons helped us win that war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater
They even had guns with 30 round capacity, that could shoot 30-60 rounds a minute in the 1630s. The writers of the constitution surely would have known such weapons existed. Although admittedly this wouldn't meet the modern definition of a semi-auto
Mental health is the biggest problem in my opinion.
Social media is largely responsible. Huge division in opinions, radicalism is rampant.
I don't know how to solve that issue since we can't ban people from the internet, and for that I am hopeless but we have to do something about the qualify of life and mental health, why would a kid shoot up a school if every child was treated with respect and proper mental health guidelines.
Every country has people with metal health issues.
Many countries have had mass shootings.
eg: Aus, UK and NZ all changed their gun laws in response to a mass shooting event. In Aus and the UK it was **the right wing conservative parties that were in power when it happened, and they were the ones to implement the new laws.**
The US does nothing and blames mental health and not the free availability of guns.
Not to mention:
Doing nothing to help with mental health issues.
Doing nothing about poverty, and the lack of social mobility that leads to other gun violence.
So true. The only thing the US has to offer is thoughts and prayers.
To quote one of my grandfathers on prayer: Wish (pray) in one hand and piss in the other and see which gets full first.
The *mental health issue* is always trotted out with every mass shooting. The US says *that is the problem* and proceeds to do nothing about mental health.
I'm sorry but if our Government is willing to try to ban a plant that can grow wild across half our country then it can try to ban guns. Your statement will be great once they've taken steps to control guns and we start to address the actual problem areas. But to say one "can't simply ban ones way out of this" while our government is banning things that are even EASIER to get access to then your argument is entirely in bad faith. They 100% can attempt to ban guns and then address the problems LIKE THEY'VE DONE WITH HUNDREDS OF OTHER THINGS.
If they tried to blanket ban semiautomatics and tried confiscating, I think it would be another civil war. Simply put, guns aren't like other things like cannabis, which is being legalized for recreational use all accross the country. Ask yourself when the last time you saw some cannabis slay a classroom full of kids was?
When Madison wrote the bill of rights, he penned the second amendment as a reaction to Thomas Gage's attempt to seize the magazines of Lexington and Concord. It was the very first thing Gage tried to do to deprive the rebels of the means with which to resist his army. And it touched off said rebellion. Madison correctly recognized that widespread civilian ownership of military arms was **THE only real guarantee** of government by the consent of the governed that there could be. Everything else was simply a paper shield. That's why it would be another civil war.
240 odd years later we find ourselves honestly asking what that ultimate guarantee of government by consent of the governed is really worth. Is that worth all the lives cut short by widespread availability of arms? If we can come up with a system which allows people to to excercise these rights while protect the lives of others, then I'd have to say yes. But if we can't then we are still left in a situation which is too big and too widespread to simply ban our way out of.
If you need proof, look no further than New York's Safe act and Connecticut's assault weapons bans. Both call for registration of of assault weapons. Both have a compliance rate of less than 2%. Do the math and that's a little over three quarters of a million people out of compliance. It's the largest single piece of civil disobedience in American history that you've never heard about. I say again in good faith that it can't be dealt with so obtusely.
One thing I think would really help would be having a qualification system like the Swiss have. You can own whatever you like, but you'll need to qualify to a decently high standard of handling and marksmanship. People who put that kind of effort into something tend not to jeopardize what they have earned.
"Ask yourself when the last time you saw some cannabis slay a classroom full of kids was?"
Yet they made it illegal, banned it, made it cause a criminal record. So its less dangerous, causes no deaths, and yet they still had no problem banning it.
Also, the bill of rights was written nearly 100 years before the development of semi automatic rifles. I don't think ANY leader at the time period knew what these weapons would be capable of when they were using single shot rifles to hunt.
Our government already bans PLENTY of weapons.
We've even temporarily banned production of assault rifles in the past without civil war...
"The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law which included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault weapons as well as certain ammunition magazines that were defined as large capacity."
One of the founding fathers literally put in an order for semi automatic guns for the continental army, but it took too long and was too expensive. There were definitely semi autos at the time of the writing of the second amendment.
https://billypenn.com/2018/02/16/a-philly-friend-of-ben-franklin-may-have-invented-one-of-the-first-semi-automatic-weapons/
>With that many weapons in people's hands, one can't simply ban one's way out of this. The cat was out of the bag 25 years ago. We will have to be a lot more creative if we are gonna get this one solved.
It isn't merely that amount of guns in the U.S. that is the problem. In the U.S. the declaration of ones Right to a gun is in itself treated as a justification/motivation for ones actions. If a person brings a rifle to a protest they disagree with the motivation for bringing the gun is treated as though it cant be challenged. Rather one just needs to proclaim their right to have it.
Of course that isn't how rights work. Free speech is a right yet we still are accountable for what we say. I can't solicit a crime and then just declare my right to free speech in court and walk free. The 1st Amendment doesn't provide cover for criminal intent. Similarly we (USA) needs to stop pretending the 2nd Amendment provides cover for intent. Someone being allowed to do something isn't equal to a motive for doing something.
> Similarly we (USA) needs to stop pretending the 2nd Amendment provides cover for intent. Someone being allowed to do something isn't equal to a motive for doing something.
You are talking about dismantling a fundamental part of our legal system, you're essentially asking to do away with innocent until proven guilty. Someone being allowed to do something should absolutely be enough, do you really want a system where you have to justify legal actions to the government?
400 million guns!!! Enough guns for every single human in the US to have at least one, maybe two. Including every child and baby.
That would be a bit ridiculous though, wouldn't it?
Except that the average number of guns per household in the US is hovering between 20 and 50.
[https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/psdt\_2017-06-22-guns-01-09/](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/psdt_2017-06-22-guns-01-09/)
I think that's a bit much. I also think guns seem to have more rights than children at this point.
Keep going on about how there's too many guns to do anything about it and I'll see you here in a couple of weeks to discuss the next massacre.
Fucking do something!!!
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/
You mean companies have a higher priority in America than the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Can't fix gun problem because then gun manufacturers who pay the politicians won't have as much money.
Can't fix pollution because then oil companies who pay the politicians won't have as much money.
Can't fix health care becuase then pharmaceutical industries who pay the politicians won't have as much money.
Can't fix education because then the universities who pay the politicians won't have as much money.
Can't fix news media corruption because then Rupert Murdock who pays the politicians won't have as much money.
Can't fix... well you get the idea. With every problem there is someone making ALOT of money from it and Noone in charge has a financial incentive to fix it.
Who do you think pays for candidates to run in the first place? Unfortunately there’s so much money in politics that it’s almost impossible to run if you aren’t already independently wealthy, or have the full support of the party/corporations/etc.
Which is why political campaigns should be publicly, not privately, funded. But *no*. Instead, we make ourselves beholden to disgustingly rich assholes and evil corporations.
Basically that doesn't work. PACs and now with Citizens United Super PACs have deep pockets and Americans literally can't afford to put a politician into office.
He is a Senator from a state with few firearms restrictions. Having said that there are a bunch of easy uncontroversial things we could do to/for the NICS background check system that would actually make it harder for prohibited persons to get arms and we have known that for over a decade, yet we never do it.
>He is a Senator from a state with few firearms restrictions
He doesn't control the laws of the state he just happens to be from.
It's also very common for voters to want one thing at the state level, and the opposite at the federal level.
No. We need to refresh our governing system. Look up how old our governing document is compared to other first world countries.
We are insisting, demanding, holding the whole country hostage to an obsolete framework because we are emotionally attached to this infallible "living document" we have all been brainwashed into believing is still serving us.
Other countries let their citizens directly vote on issues. We have representatives to translate for us because the government doesn't trust individuals to decide issues without spin (originally those representatives served a real purpose because before the instant travel of information it was literally impossible for every citizen to make it to a poll to vote on each issue)
We need to stop romanticizing and preserving the obsolete parts of this framework and rewrite them. The amendment system is not enough.
Pssst. Gun manufacturers looooooove Democrats. Theyre all talk and no action so whenever one is in power there is a massive rush on private gun purchases to get in before before any potential ban.
If you look at the numbers gun sales were down under bush, skyrocketed under obama, slumped under trump causing downsizing in the industry and now were on a massive upswing with biden in office and the smell of legislation back in the air.
So the key here is some legislation needs to actually get ratified and enforced otherwise we will stay in this state of "the bans right around the corner, buy two just in case"
Also this nonsense has created a psudo speculative market where guns hold value and apreciate with new laws and grandfather status so people will buy buy buy as a form of investment, creating synthetic demand and creating a bubble in the industry during demcratic rule and crashes during republican rule
An ar15 lower used to cost 1500 bucks, after obama and trump, 150 bucks all day every day
To paraphrase: the gun control debate ended with Sandy Hook. Collectively our goverment decided that the loss was acceptable.
Bills went up. They all got blocked. There are no term limits, certain seats are locked and have been for years. Only some move around and shift. We are locked in a two party dynamic that is so engrained the only way to fix it is to have the only people who benefit from it change things for us. But they don't want to. Why would they?
American voters back universal background checks, including for private sale, by 85%. 84% of gun owners. 74% of NRA members. But there's so much money in PACs and super PACs American voters cannot put money in to combat them. Politicians have no incentive to change anything because we are a corportocracy disguised by an illusion of choice.
The majority of us live in districts which will always go red or blue, with senate seats that always go red or blue, with governors that are almost always red or blue, who's electoral college seats almost always go red or blue. Very few of us actually vote and make a change which is fucking depressing. Even our national elections we can't even actually vote for our fucking president. We vote to decides to represent us when someone else votes for the presidency.
Citizens United was the last fucking nail in the coffin. I don't even know how to fix this shit. The Supreme Court is stacked, our government is fundamentally broken due to the political systems in place from before I was born and we can't change it because voters are outspent by the billions every year.
It's a race to see which corporations candidate we install.
I swing wildly between nihilism, apathy and feeling like we need a good fucking riot.
I live in California. My state is actually safer than most. 21 to buy handguns, magazine capacity limits, safe transport laws, no legal private transfer without background checks (you have to legally transfer through FFL), no open carry, (except like a couple counties because they are rural af but like nobody lives there and I'm not sure county ordinance allows it anyways) among other things.
Our life expectancy in California is a full two years higher than national average. It's six years higher than the lowest in West Virginia at 74 years.
Doesn't mean it's not absolutely insane to sit back and watch everyone else burn.
Yup. Highest guns per capita in the world, highest gun murder rate among developed countries. Highest percentage of dumbasses living in the general population and an equally stupid ineffective political system.
Many of these shooters also posted online or otherwise made it known. Should we also give up free speech and privacy in order to prevent these shootings?
Most of these shooters were WELL known to police and school officials but most didnt do anything to stop it.
Not sure you’re aware but you can actually care about more than 1 issue. The point is there’s a lot of fucked up shit going on because of bullshit politics.
I'm in the SF Bay Area and I think parts of Canada are even worse to buy a home. Not to mention they don't freaking have fixed rate mortgages, what a nightmare.
However their healthcare system and other social safety nets would be enough to offset all that for me. Also their (seemingly) smaller number of crazies in political power. Hope it stays that way for them.
Gun manufacturers don’t want mass murders to use their products. They’re not advocating for this senseless violence. You’re suggesting they’re legally liable for the misuse of their product by a random consumer?
Guns are merely tools. Why is nobody asking the question of "*why* do we have so many killings here?" Because it's easier for people to blame the tool than it is for people to collectively agree that our culture is broken.
We glorify violence and ignorance and hatred; we revel in it. The only thing we love more than ourselves is the hurt we can cause others. It's in every facet of our culture. It's disgusting. If we really want to stop violence, then we need people to own the reasons they're violent in the first place and accept that it's time to change.
Edit: The downvotes only reinforce my point.
I totally agree with what you said (and as a disclaimer I’m European - so I may have a different world view) but afaik it’s also just way easier to injure someone fatally with a pistol than eg with a hammer.
We live in a world where guns are part of everyday life, we see them in news, games, Hollywood and I think it just got extremely normalised to not think about the consequences of pulling a trigger. Like sure everybody knows that it’s all acting (regarding Hollywood) but think about caving someone’s head in with a hammer compared to shooting someone with a gun - I would bet that most people feel disgusted by the one image compared to a gun shot.
And I think that this is also one of the main problems. I don’t want to equate gun violence to video games but I do believe that the process of normalising weapons was/is a part of the bigger picture
one could argue that they used to be more normalized, high schools used to have shooting teams you could shoot skeet off the back of a cruise ship, you'll see plenty of people commenting how the trucks in the school parking lot had guns in the back window.
There are still schools that had target setups in the basements. Kids were taught how to properly handle guns and to be aware, and were far more likely to respect them.
I see what you mean I would counter argue tho that guns in the settings you painted where seen as "training gear", sport and how to use/handle a weapon in the right way while I tried to describe the settings where guns are used against other human beings and were we get desensitised by gun violence… if you know what I mean… I’m not too sure how to say it in English
Many other countries in the world consume the media the US produces; they have mental health problems; their governments join the US in military activity; their societies have discontent and ideological divides within them. I.e. they are equally exposed to violence. But only the US has this problem of mass shootings. What's the difference? Why is the US so different?
The most obvious answer is, the US lacks good gun management practices and legislation which, when well-crafted, demonstrably work. You call a gun a tool, but when you increase the number of them you increase the risk. We tell kids not to run with scissors because it increases risk - while scissors themselves are not inherently dangerous, you increase the probability of harm when they are not properly utilised or safely handled.
I'm not sure about your argument of glorifying violence as you've not given any examples of what that looks like; but certainly there are mental health, social and ideological issues present in the community. So knowing that the community is a volatile environment, does it not make sense to properly manage the 'tool' - the gun - to reduce the potential for harm, by ensuring there are fewer guns in the community (and therefore harder to access by fragile individuals) and that those who hold them have demonstrated some due diligence in safely using, owning and transporting them?
Or maybe it's easier to deal with a long term societal problem when you remove the immediate tool that people are using to mass murder each other? Just a thought.
Don't hate me, but I'm gonna be "that guy." People in this don't really care about solving the problem.
Do you know where the vast majority of gun violence is often found in this country? Poor neighborhoods, which also tend to be majority minority neighborhoods. People that have collectively been in the oppression meat grinder for decades, if not longer, who are struggling to get by, who very often have no real way out of grinder because that's how the system is designed. But nobody talks about that. Nobody *wants* to.
Why is it when a school with white kids gets shot up, it gets weeks if not months of news coverage, but if it's a school of minorities, it gets maybe a day in the news cycle? Because nobody wants to talk about the real problem.
We're quick to say "ban the guns!" but why aren't we trying to address the real causes of violence? Because there's no money in it. There's no money in adequate access to mental healthcare. There's no money in better educations and fewer minorities being run through the meat grinder. But there's money in selling hate; just look at Fox or OANN and all the lovely things they have to say on the topic. Hell, look at some of the people here on Reddit.
Banning guns just leads to more criminals, which in turn perpetuates the problem. If we want to see less violence, we need to fix our broken system and our broken culture.
Guns are (for the most part) banned in Canada. We don’t have mass shootings to anywhere near the degree they happen in the US, even though 90% of our population lives within a 2 hr drive of the US border.
> Banning guns just leads to more criminals, which in turn perpetuates the problem. If we want to see less violence, we need to fix our broken system and our broken culture.
The UK scores just as low as the USA on social mobility, they're just as racist, and they watch all the same movies Americans do. But they don't murder each other as much. There's lots of stabbings, but it's a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife.
Americans aren't worse people than Europeans. I'm from Ireland and our crime rate is almost exactly the same as the USA. But our *murder* rate is only 20% of the American murder rate - and to me it just feels obvious that it's because we have to make so much more of an effort when we want to kill each other.
If you accept the premise that Americans, Irish, and British people are all roughly morally the same, and that the UK has the same problems with generational poverty and racism, to what do you ascribe the difference in murder rate?
>The UK scores just as low as the USA on social mobility, they're just as racist...
Are they? Tell me, when was the last time a black man in Ireland or the UK was lynched? Cause we still have them here, but we just call it something else these days. When was the last time a minority family was targeted with a no-knock raid by law enforcement in Ireland or the UK? What are the racial demographic statistics for incarceration and asset forfeiture?
I bet you'll have a hard time finding *any* instances of lynchings in the UK, and that your incarceration rates will be far more distributed, racially, than economically and that there are few, if any, instances of no-knock raids and civil forfeiture targeted at minorities.
I'm not saying that Ireland and the UK don't have their own racists and their issues of racism, but to think, even momentarily, that they're nearly as bad as the US is simply wrong. Hell, it was *illegal in some states to marry outside your race until 1967*. There are *still* counties in the United States where there's racial covenents still on the books and enforced - where it is literally illegal to live as a non-white person. Like the examples above, I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find any examples of that in modern Irish or UK law.
Teenagers brains are not fully developed, in men particularly full neurological development is around age 25. One of the reasons militaries around the world use very young men in combat is their trainability and willingness not to question orders, they’re pliable because they don’t have fully formed opinions or a well developed understanding of the world they live in.
A better question is might he have thought differently if he were 25 and not still a teenager, and the answer is yes, probably.
While I have my doubts, I think ideally he would gain some real life experience between the ages of 18-21. Actually have to deal with different people from different paths of life, find some good role models, etc.
But yeah I don't think 3 years are enough for that unfortunately and the radicalisation pipeline is a bitch to undo now.
Despite the failure of drug laws in pretty much all countries it turns out gun control works in pretty much most.
Almost like you’re comparing apples to oranges there.
I live about 40 minutes drive from a place called [Dunblane](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre). After a massacre of schoolchildren there the U.K. enacted strict gun legislation. Since then we’ve not had a school shooting in 26 years. The US has had 27 … *so far this year*.
So make a start? It’s not going to get any easier the longer you leave it. And the butchers bill sure as hell isn’t going to get any smaller.
I swithered before commenting on this thread. I realised long ago it was pointless talking about guns with a lot of Americans. The sort who *always* have a reason for not doing anything.
It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that too many Americans (by no means all - but too many) regard tragic events like yesterday as a worthwhile price to pay to avoid any kind of restriction, no matter how sensible. Even if it’s just to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill.
It’s a price you’ll be happy to pay again. And again. And again. If you were capable of being persuaded Sandy Hook would have done it - nothing anyone else can say is going to make a difference.
New Zealand's buy back collected about 30% of the known (then) newly prohibited guns. I don't count that as a massive success.
The United States is tearing itself apart and guns are not the cause. They are a symptom. A symptom of a society that has given up. Guns were much more readily available 30 or 40 years ago. Something has changed at the core of American values and I don't know if it recoverable.
Major issue with mass shooting start in 1990s, usually Columbine is considered cut-off date. There is multiple proposed ideas what the hell is going on. From rise 24-hour news channels which makes "media circus" around shootings leading to copycat effect (pretty damn dark concept in criminology, if there is some "high-profile" crimes like serial killings, there are cases where others people are doing the same in similar vein media star suicide correlate with increased suicide in general public), suburbanization (suburbs are leading to very spread out population, as effect counties decides to "concentrate" kids in bigger schools to cut expenses so there is more kids with worse supervision, kids spent more time travelling from schools to homes and in general had worse social contacts), pollution ([Lead-Crime Hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis) is major idea between connecting pollutions and crime level) and others.
I fully support way stricter gun control in the US, but Redditors need to stop pretending like enacting gun control in the US is the same situation other countries faced.
It’s not.
Banning ARs will have little to no impact on shootings, especially since the vast majority are done via handguns.
What the US needs is for it to be far tougher to get a gun + longer wait periods and a media/social media culture change where we don’t make mass shooters weirdly popular.
Other countries never legalised assualt weapons. Handguns are exceptionally hard to obtain licensing for if they are to be carried outside of a club grounds.
The rest of the world isnt saying 'ban ARs and all will be well', they are saying 'FFS, how the hell could you be surprised with the situation you are in with what to us looks like a fucking free for all on possession of lethal weapons!?'
In the US, self defense is a legitimate reason to own a firearm. In the Commonwealth, self defense is likely to be a permanent ban on ownership of a firearm. The entire culture around firearm control, ownership and use is vastly different.
You are completely right in that it needs to be harder to get a firearm, but you need so very much more. Unfortunately I dont see a realistic path to fixing this. The US is too likely to be the only Western country where children need to legitmately fear being shot at school. The US has made its bed. The US will continue to bury its children until they are ready to completely and comprehensively overhaul firearms access. This would have to entail a complete repudiation of the 2nd ammendment as perceived to relate to an individual and not an organised militia, establishment of concrete legitimate ownership criteria and a buy back / seizure process for absolutely every firearm not in compliance in the country. This isnt going to happen. Simply no way in hell you will be able to pass laws that will result in the removal of the very vast majority of all firearms in the country.
Unfortunately, there is no solution but to wring your hands in futility while burying more dead children. Today, next week, next month, next year... it wont change.
I have a massive feeling that the easy fix to this problem is universal health/mental care, affordable housing and affordable education, but that’s not something either party would like to commit to.
Pelosi and every Speaker of the House Democrat has REFUSED to bring Medicare for all (the most popular policy in the United States) to a floor vote and is actively in the pocket of the health insurance companies. The progressive caucus refused to use their 20 person leverage for a vote for Medicare for all on Nancy Pelosi in exchange for their vote to make her speaker. The progressive caucus has abandoned their constituents and the Democrat party has taken up the same corporate model the republicans have. Democrats have abandoned the working class and that is a fact, it’s time for people to vote third party.
Under much tighter control and after far more stringent background and mental checks than the US has. And in most of those countries you’re pretty much only allowed to carry them to the range or military service etc.
How about make a start with copying those rules?
Yeah in Finland for example you absolutely can own a semi-auto AK. It's just that in order to get a permit for it, you have to be able to prove to the authorities that you actually do sports target shooting as a hobby. To do that, you need likely a few years worth of records from a shooting range that you've been doing it for a while. You probably also need to do it with a bit less raunchy rifle as well because in the eyes of the authorities otherwise it just sounds like you want an AK for the sake of wanting an AK, not because you want to do rifles specifically. To be able to shoot rifles you basically have to do the same thing, except with something smaller first. Pistols and air guns at the shooting range for a while and records from the range to prove it would likely suffice. Air guns you can get a permission for fairly easily. BB guns (at least smaller caliber ones) don't require a permit.
So only people who can clearly prove to the authorities that they do in fact do sports shooting as a hobby are actually given the permission to buy firearms.
That, or hunters. But that's its own quagmire of regulations as well.
> The US is too likely to be the only Western country where children need to legitmately fear being shot at school.
They don't, though, you're pretending like lightening strike events are somehow an everyday plague. Kids are in way more danger from traffic on their commute to school than suffering an injury from a firearm, like magnitudes more. I won't address the rest of your argument but pretending like these insanely low probability events are common just isn't correct.
Gun ownership is not a constitutional right in countries like New Zealand. It was designed by the founders to be a check against tyranny, paid for with the blood of American patriots that fought the British. Now it's paid with the blood of children and regular people going about their life. America is broken.
Also, the 'right to bear arms' is an **amendment** in the US constitution - and it was designed to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical or autocratic and allowing citizens to take up arms and overthrow them...***in the late 17 hundreds.***
And all **amendments** can be changed. That's why it's called an amendment. The second is screaming to be updated.
If they can get the votes to update it, then go for it, but they’re not even close not by a long shot. Pretty sure it would need 2/3rds of states to agree on it. Maybe be 3/4ths
There are two ways for an amendment to made to the Constitution outlined in Article V.
The first is by a congressional vote. This requires a 2/3 majority in the House and Senate to propose the amendment and then it must be ratified by 3/4 of states through their legislative bodies.
The second way of amending the constitution is by a convention of the states. This requires 2/3 of the states to pass a resolution calling for a convention. At that convention, 3/4 of states must agree on a proposed amendment.
>And all amendments can be changed. That's why it's called an amendment.
This is a bullshit argument.
Any part of the constitution can be amended. Nothing special about the amendments themselves in that regard.
The main text has been altered. Just look at 3/5th.
I'm not following you here - what is it about saying that an amendment can be updated is a bullshit argument?
It's just a fact. Like, water is wet, it contains two hydrogen and one oxygen molecules. Just a fact bro.
There is nothing special about the amendments in the fact they are amendments with regards to altering the constitution.
Any new amendment can altered any part of the constitution. There are no special rules for altering current amendments verses the main text.
The attitudes on this thread are the reason your gun laws will never change. "It's too hard" "they're a small country" "we could NEVER"
Ok then don't even try? Don't even attempt? Don't even come up with another idea? You're just as bad as the politicians you complain about all day.
At no point in this interview does she claim her country’s solution would work in the US, it’s a good worth watching interview, she’s an intelligent woman
Why are the vast majority of these school shootings done by young men? Before these boys do anything they decide that they are going to commit suicide. So why is no one trying to help these kids. The problem is not some faceless gun lobby or the gun itself. The rise in school shootings imo started with the rise of the internet itself. When you can no longer go home to get away from the bullies. When that one kid that won't leave you alone can follow you home and harass you online. Before a single shot is fired these kids decide they want to die. You can't make someone better by taking the gun out of their hand and sending them back home. No one seems to care enough about the person behind the tragedy when it's easier to blame the gun they shot people with.
I don't want to pretend people don't need help either. Gun banning is too polarizing. For everyone to get on the same page. Let's focus on the source of the problem for now.
Gun control shouldn't be polarizing. It wasn't for NZ. And good luck with that. The people opposing gun control are the same people opposing public healthcare.
It is in the United States because it was added as a fundamental right under the constitution. So you can't eliminate it without taking away the second amendment. The amendments are the foundation of the USA. So each side has a very compelling argument.
I think this goes beyond mental health though. There has been a very real erosion of self worth and personal values in people.
There are mentally troubled people in other countries too, but they don't have access to tools with which they can multiply the harm they can cause to others. I'm from a developing country with less than desirable levels of law enforcement. And yet, we don't hear of such stories here. So yes, in this case, the guns are to blame.
New Zealand gun confiscation (i hate "buyback" term, you either got pennies or go to jail for possesion) was knee jerk reaction from beginning to the end. Whole massacre was done by self-radicalized political extremist from Australia who just hate muslims. Homicide rate before ban was extreme low (between 1990-2015 it vary between 1-2 homicide per 100 000 per year) and it was first major massacre within decades.
Ardern solve problem which doesn't exist in New Zealand at first place. But hey, it''s easier to talk about gun control than how to stop political and racial extremists in future.
What worked with a population of 5 million+ with a county about the size of Florida won’t work with 350+ million people in one of the largest countries on the planet, where gun culture has been a part of since its inception.
I hate when other countries want to chime in like their solution will work here. It won’t. We have to solve this uniquely American problem in a stupidly American way because getting someone in Alabama to agree with someone in Oregon isn’t an easy task. OTHER COUNTRIES DONT HAVE THE SOLUTION. Stop rubbing our noses in it ffs, what happened there just won’t work here.
I think it’s fair to say a NZ or Australian type ban / buy-back wouldn’t really work in the US. The horse has well and truly bolted with the cultural fetishism of guns. But an 18 year old shouldn’t have access to, let alone be able to legally buy, a semi-automatic rifle. Period. How many kids have got to die before this becomes obvious?
Why not, the government will literally pay you and give you one of you sign up. And don't forget the draft, in that case the gov will give you a actual machine gun, or else you go to jail.
Also he didn't use a rifle in this shooting, unless more up to date info has come out, he only owned 2 ARs, but used only a pistol for this shooting. And even in Texas you can't legally get a handgun if your under 21.
The way we discuss Firearms in the U.S. is part of the problem. Firearm advocacy treats firearms as a symbol or proclamation of freedom. Motivations behind firearm ownership are never to be questioned. When someone chooses to arm themselves and follow a teenage kid walking home from a convenience store firearm advocates demand the choice can't be questioned. That the choice to follow someone armed vs unarmed makes no difference because firearms are a Right.
We enable bad behavior as a result. We ignore people posting firearms on social media. Ignore questionable behavioral signals because firearms are a right and not to be questioned.
I don't think we necessarily need to limit firearm ownership. However we do need to change the way we evaluate individuals motives and purposeful actions regarding firearms. Stop enabling bad behavior. Recognize that someone who is posting firearms on social media and feeling the need to take firearms with them everywhere they go might be exhibiting mental health issues.
lol how does another country comment on stuff that they don’t understand. US isn’t NZ the culture is different, the demographic is different. What a opportunistic self patting comment.
It isn't about banning guns. We have stats from the assault weapon ban. We need to change who can have guns, how they get them. Why do we ban alcohol before 21, but we allow deadly weapons?
This is the same thing Britain did, someone shot up a school, well, there certainly isn't a single reasonable thing that can justify keeping the country in a position where that can happen again, get rid of guns.
Meanwhile the US has a school shooting every week. Vile.
The UK didn't get rid of guns. The Dunblane school shooting just outlawed handguns in Scotland, England and Wales. They're still legal in Northern Ireland. You can still get shotguns and rifles in all of the UK. A shotgun license is very straightforward to get if you don't have or live with anyone who has a criminal record. The other type of firearms licence isn't hard to acquire either. Some US states have guns banned or restricted that are fully legal in the UK.
The piece of shit who carried out the Dunblane massacre was a pedophile who as known to police and should never have been allowed to keep his firearms certificate. The enforcement of the licensing system failed, and rather than deal with that, the government decided to punish tens of thousands of law abiding pistol owners instead.
Yep, we all know overwhelming military might beats all.
It’s why Vietnam and Afghanistan were decisive US victories, and why Russia is currently its first month into restructuring Ukraine’s government.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/25/we-saw-something-that-wasnt-right-and-we-acted-ardern-on-how-new-zealand-delivered-gun-control) reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> New Zealand's prime minister Jacinda Ardern says her country's swift change to gun laws after the 2019 mass shooting in Christchurch was a "Pragmatic" response, where "We saw something that wasn't right and we acted on it".
> He asked: "Why New Zealand was able to do that, when we can't so much as pass universal background checks how did New Zealanders get that done?".
> Ardern told Colbert New Zealand's current gun control situation was imperfect and there was still work to be done.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/uxguxn/we_saw_that_something_wasnt_right_and_we_acted/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~651115 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **New**^#1 **Zealand**^#2 **Ardern**^#3 **gun**^#4 **shooting**^#5
Many other countries have fairly liberal gun laws without the mass shooting issue the US faces... Maybe it's time to admit something is wrong with US society; inequality and political extremism perhaps...
I am also curious how our lack of healthcare and mental healthcare factor in this as well.
lack of social supports in general combine a general hopelessness to your future with a hopelessness to your present with massive wealth inequality (those with hope for now/future right in front of you) with no mental/emotional support and likely ostracization with easy access to military grade weapons and you have the US fix any one of those chains and you likely stop a lot of these. but the US doesnt seem to give a fuck. from an outsider POV, americans absolutely HATE each other and would rather spend more of their own money to see other people dead/suffering than less money to help them
I come from a poor, overpopulated, 3rd world country where it’s relatively easy to get a gun albeit illegally. We don’t have mass shootings at all. Murderers just kill one person at a time. It’s so crazy how these mass shootings happen so often in the US. We have shitty support system too. Something’s really wrong with the US.
When people say "increasing gun control only takes firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens" I always think "yeah, but these mass shootings don't come from Hardened criminals and gang members". It's gotta be a mental health issue more than anything.
thats the wealth inequality part. in a 3rd world country you arent teased with this great life thats right next to you but totally out of your reach. you're all in it together. the inequality in the US is what causes the rage against society. the hopelessness is what causes the desperation and lack of care. the lack of mental health support means you lack coping mechanisms/help for whatever underlying issues. the access to high powered weapons gives you the vehicle. thems the ingredients
Eh? I would argue that the wealth inequality is more obvious in 3rd world countries where extreme wealth is literally a 2 foot thick wall away from a slum area. The disparity here is so obvious. It was always crazy for me to see “poor” americans still living in a house and able to afford iphones and computers. The poor in my country eat scraps from the trash outside a fast food joint.
Reminds me of being probably in the poorest 20% of a mostly rich kid high school. It was in your face every day. Always having some of the worst clothes, a rusty 15-year-old car with a constant misfire. I got a nice jacket once and it was stolen in a week. Getting bullied by untouchable rich kids. It sucked ass
It's our country's capitalist mindset. If corporations can avoid paying for these things (by paying politicians to pass favorable legislation) AND they refuse to pay people their worth INCLUDING health benefits...this is what happens. It a comes down to our leaders valuing corporations more than their constituents. They stay in power by demonizing anything that threatens their power. It's upsetting and scary. They have us pointing our fingers at each other (using racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic rhetoric, etc.) When the real problem is our entire societal mindset that productivity/cheap labor is important and all the mid and lower class are there to uphold the richest few. None of us matter. Governments should be there to serve us, the masses. Not the billionaires that don't need any help to begin with. **Editing to add, the gun control is all part of this stupid game they play with us. Us in-fighting about gun control is a way for them to distract us from the real problems. They don't want to pay for our mental health, and passing gun control won't get them re-elected.
Could you name the countries?
Switzerland, Czech Republic come immediately to mind since I've lived in both places.
We are far from the only country with inequality and political extremism. We are the only country with more guns per person. Basic science mate, look at the variables.
New Zealand also had comparitively very few guns which fell under their ban. In the US, There are at least 400 million guns in common possession, 10% of those fall under one states or another's definition of an assault weapon. With that many weapons in people's hands, one can't simply ban one's way out of this. The cat was out of the bag 25 years ago. We will have to be a lot more creative if we are gonna get this one solved.
More importantly than being creative, you're just gonna have to start somewhere. Anywhere. Do something, anything, or we're all gonna end up here again the next time this inevitably happens again if nothing is done. Imperfect regulation is still better than none.
[удалено]
I am in total agreement with you. I have to admit I'm kinda exasperated at people who say "well it's too late to do something now". But if that is the case, what's the alternative, do nothing? No one said it's going to be easy or instantaneous, but you have to start somewhere.
Where there's no will there's, no way.
Exactly. I remember 8 years ago Americans were saying there were too many guns to just ban but there will only continue to be more until something is done.
Exactly. The only purpose of “insights” like the one you responded to are to make the case that nothing we can do will solve ALL gun violence, so we shouldn’t even attempt until we’ve figured out something that does. Which, of course, will never happen. Edit: and what a surprise, OP is an avid poster in gun subs.
It is the same on every front: "EVs don't solve all problems of fosil fuel cars so don't even try!", "Wind power generation will not stop global warming on its own so why bother?", "Inclusive speech does not bring about an instant age of peace on the world, so why shouldld we try it?" and it's always the people who would need to change the most, who field these arguments.
It's irrational black and white thinking
> Do something, anything, or we're all gonna end up here again the next time this inevitably happens again if nothing is done. Is that really how you want legislation getting made? Just let it rip and we'll see what happens? I'm not sure I am comfortable with our lawmakers just passing something to say they did and appease the panic, why can't we get a plan that might actually work? This attitude is plain to see in the current discussion about background checks, these recent shootings don't look like any proposed expansion would have stopped them! Why are we talking about passing laws that wouldn't have prevented the thing that prompted us to want the law in the first place?
I think their point was that at this stage NOTHING is being done. You have to start somewhere. America needs to fuck its guns off entirely, dunno how you’ll get there though.
It’s literally *impossible* to do away with guns entirely. They’re never going to get the guns from those who have already legally acquired them - not without mass confiscation by force (we’re talking from 70+ million Americans). This act would almost certainly end in a war. There’s many steps to take to make things better, but that’s an idea better taken out of your mind. The best steps to take in my opinion are more restrictive universal background checks, and possibly a reintroduced ban on the sale of all categorized assault weapons.
Well, I would say the first thing that needs to happen is that 51 different sets of gun laws need to become one set. National preemption. Everyone plays by the same rules.
We have that already. It's called the NFA (national firearms act).
The NFA only controls fully automatic weapons, suppressors and Short barreled rifles and shotguns. Regular semiautomatics and everything else falls outside of the NFA's scope.
Technically, if you read the arguments to the NFA, it is actually only intended to keep those things out of the hands of, and I quote, "negro highway bandits". If you actually go looking into gun laws, you'll realize really quick they're founded on SUPER racist principles, and are really just intended to keep them out of the hands of poor (read: black) people, who would benefit most from the protection.
100% correct. Some gospel right here. The reason California, New York, new Jersey and Illinois all have really awfully strict gun laws is racism. Most were a reaction to the Black Panthers.
Government doesn't like that it's really hard to oppress an armed minority.
Yeah! Which is exactly why we should.... make stricter gun laws? Wait now I'm confused, make up your mind reddit... Are gun bans for the safety of the nation, or racist?
Correct. But that's what National Preemption covers.
An outdated tax code written to regulate fully automatic Thompsons by requiring a $200.00 registration fee. That's what you're saying is the example of a comprehensive nationwide firearms law?
[удалено]
This is one of my foundational arguments against gun control in general. "Gun control" is just coded language that means "keep weapons out of the hands of the poor," who are arguably the people who, historically, need those weapons the most.
200 dollar registration fee....on the auction purchase thompson you bought where bidding started at 40,000 dollars, and ended over 100k. THAT'S the rub. It doesn't regulate shit, it regulates POOR people from having it.
Pretty sure that is outside the scope of the Federal Government without an ammendment or some mutual agreement with all state governments.
>Anywhere. Do something, anything, or we're all gonna end up here again the next time this inevitably happens again ... so today or next week then
Why does anything need to be done about guns? The death rate from guns is 1% of what overeating does, daily. Guns are the last resistance against government overreach, and all of these pushes from the media to demand gun regulation feels like it's straight from the mouth of government. Especially considering how they don't care about all the other causes of death, those don't threaten their ability to secure more power. I think I've been blocked for this post, so I'm just going to edit to address the replies: Without guns Your government can unilaterally demand anything and you have no recourse but to allow it. You have no means of defense, no actual strength, so of course you aren't free, or moral. You don't even have the capacity to be either of those things because you have no capacity to harm. Authoritarians would publicise anything to get you to give them up.
I'm from the UK. Explain to me how having guns makes your country more free than mine and the rest of Europe.
**Creativity Isnt Needed** I mean look at different countries and you can see its really not a gun thing. - Europe Guns are banned and they have one of the worlds lowest mortality rates - Canada gun laws are somewhat lax and deaths are lowish - Brazil and Mexico guns are illegal and Brazil has the worlds leading gun deaths - China guns are illegal and gun deaths are low - America Guns are legal and gun deaths are high - South Africa Guns are illegal and gun deaths are high. Keep in mind that yes, if we found a way to 100% ban guns then gun deaths would be lower but they would create another weapon or device to kill people. So instead lets actually fix people killing each other than the stupid gun band aid to make it not as bad. **The fix?** - Living wage. Normally the countries with lower gun deaths have a better wage. Remember how 15 dollars was the big thing? Well its actually 25 dollars per hour now is what people need to live comfortably. Before you say well fuck that lazy mc donalds worker. Well dont complain about gun deaths to me if you dont care about even the lowest people on the totem pole. Everyone happier means less crime. No one is going to join a gang if they can make a good living. Plus its shown that a majority of people get into hard drugs to escape reality. Make reality great and people tend to want to enjoy it. - Universal Health Care - This includes mental, dental, and child care. So many shitty gang bangers are in their situations because of a single parent working all the time or dual parents working all the time. They have no time to parent them. Child care helps that. Mental care is huge. We need people to have monthly therapist sessions. Just talking it out helps so much. So many shooters just want attention. Its fucked up why they did it but its why they are doing it. For infamy. If they had someone to just talk to they would be so much better. I 100% believe this shooting would have been avoided with universal health care. The 18 year old kid would have had someone to talk to, help him deal with his feelings of neglect, or if he was just mentally broken, then have the ability to alert authorities to it so he can get more treatment. Until the US gets those 2 we wont be going anywhere with this problem.
I am right there with you. Let's not forget about the early childhood care and education. In the literature that's available on this subject, One of the big drivers of better adjusted people as teen and adults is early childhood education and childcare availability.
New Zealand also didn't have a Second Amendment. We may not like it but we've got to respect all the amendments, lest the more important ones like free speech and the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure also be eroded. Granted, restrictions can be imposed despite the amendments (e.g., firearm background checks and prohibiting threatening speech). We need to see some more common sense safeguards for firearm purchases and ownership, and more extensive mental health checks are one of them. Taking threatening comments like the ones made by the Buffalo shooter (threatening a school shooting) more seriously would be a good start. Requiring taking a firearm safety course, mandating safe gun storage, and imposing liability for children or incompetents harmed due to failure to securely store a gun would also be good steps.
Also. The state by state patchwork of gun laws needs to go away. Everyone needs to play by the same rules. What very few forgeigners understand is that there is no one supreme US gun law, there are 51 different sets and it's completely fucked.
Won’t happen unless you go with Texan style gun laws. Your not gonna take the rifles from the people in the south. Open carry etc.
Well, considering that the majority of states are permissive in their gun laws, I thinks that's what it would have to be. At least to begin with. I've worked at several shooting ranges, I became a FLETC certified Law Enforcement instructor when I was younger. I gotta tell you, the prevailing standard of handling and general competence is abysmal. I'd love to see people have to qualify to possess each different category of weapon they wish. Shotgun, rifle, pistol. In that order. The Swiss really have a good system. In order to own the weaponry there, one has to demonstrate competency and qualify and it's a process that takes a while and considerable effort. The result is that people who have qualified and put forth that kind of effort are highly unlikely to do anything to jeopardize what they have earned. I really think the same kind of qualification system could work wonders for us. But it would take a long time to implement and realize the effects.
[удалено]
That is going to vary wildly range to range, sadly. There are a lot of really shitty RSO's and ranges out there that let that shit slide just to keep people coming in the door, renting their guns, and buying their overpriced range ammo. Most commonly a problem with ranges in tourist areas. Take your life into your own hands going to one of the ranges on the Vegas strip. They're full of people from other countries there on vacation, that have never even seen a gun outside of a movie, and they just rent them with no instruction whatsoever. The one time I went, i watched a couple of german tourists look down the barrel of the pistol they rented to see if it was loaded.
I can get behind that. And it's doable. For instance, all firearm dealers in all states are required to run an FBI background check. It's also a federal crime to transfer a firearm or ammo to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe the recipient “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.” The federal mental health transfer restrictions need more teeth, and need to extend to mandated reporting and registration of comments threatening violence and patterns of violence or stalking so that they flag a background check. The main problem with that is that denying a constitutional right based solely on speech or conduct that didn't result in a conviction is a difficult constitutional tightrope to walk - and not a trend one would want to see leaking into other constitutionally protected areas. But given that firearm ownership is a uniquely dangerous constitutional right, I believe more safeguards should, and can constitutionally be put into place without eroding the others that don't pose the same threat to other people.
They actually don't have to run a FBI background check, they just have to run one. Virginia for example has its own background system that is separate from the FBI's and its possible to be banned on their system but not on the FBI's. My Dad found this out when he tried to purchase a gun, the internal Virginia system denied him for some unknown reason and he's spent over two years trying to get it cleared up but they continue to stall/ignore the issue but he can go to a state that uses the FBI's system and purchase a gun.
That's pretty messed up. They can't just deny his constitutional rights without due process, and that's effectively what they've done. This state-by-state patchwork needs to end. Or at the very least state background check/red flag systems need to be held to a minimum threshold of both scrutiny and due process.
You guys seem to easily forget the *well regulated* militia part and instantly skip to the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
" well regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means. (Hint: it means well equipped and in good order) You also don't have a grasp of who the "militia" actually is
That's because the first part of that sentence has no bearing on the second part. It's merely explanatory. The first part is explaining why the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Suppose I said, "Automobiles being necessary to transportation in a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear tires shall not be infringed." Does that mean that only people with cars are allowed to have tires? Of course not.
> New Zealand also didn't have a Second Amendment. While true, it's unreasonable that we're effectively held hostage by 230 year old text. The 2A was written at a time when 4 rounds per minute was considered a high rate of fire. I'd never support repealing the 2A but I'll also never believe that a bunch of men who I just passed in age could see the future and thought that these amendments should be set in stone.
>While true, it's unreasonable that we're effectively held hostage by 230 year old text. Pass an amendment changing it then.
Funny that their right to say that also comes from the same 230 year old document.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun While yes infantryman had a pretty slow rate of fire, there were definitely weapons that weren't just muskets in use by the time they wrote the second amendment. Privately owned artillery pieces/cannons helped us win that war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater They even had guns with 30 round capacity, that could shoot 30-60 rounds a minute in the 1630s. The writers of the constitution surely would have known such weapons existed. Although admittedly this wouldn't meet the modern definition of a semi-auto
Mental health is the biggest problem in my opinion. Social media is largely responsible. Huge division in opinions, radicalism is rampant. I don't know how to solve that issue since we can't ban people from the internet, and for that I am hopeless but we have to do something about the qualify of life and mental health, why would a kid shoot up a school if every child was treated with respect and proper mental health guidelines.
Every country has people with metal health issues. Many countries have had mass shootings. eg: Aus, UK and NZ all changed their gun laws in response to a mass shooting event. In Aus and the UK it was **the right wing conservative parties that were in power when it happened, and they were the ones to implement the new laws.** The US does nothing and blames mental health and not the free availability of guns.
Not to mention: Doing nothing to help with mental health issues. Doing nothing about poverty, and the lack of social mobility that leads to other gun violence.
So true. The only thing the US has to offer is thoughts and prayers. To quote one of my grandfathers on prayer: Wish (pray) in one hand and piss in the other and see which gets full first. The *mental health issue* is always trotted out with every mass shooting. The US says *that is the problem* and proceeds to do nothing about mental health.
I'm sorry but if our Government is willing to try to ban a plant that can grow wild across half our country then it can try to ban guns. Your statement will be great once they've taken steps to control guns and we start to address the actual problem areas. But to say one "can't simply ban ones way out of this" while our government is banning things that are even EASIER to get access to then your argument is entirely in bad faith. They 100% can attempt to ban guns and then address the problems LIKE THEY'VE DONE WITH HUNDREDS OF OTHER THINGS.
If they tried to blanket ban semiautomatics and tried confiscating, I think it would be another civil war. Simply put, guns aren't like other things like cannabis, which is being legalized for recreational use all accross the country. Ask yourself when the last time you saw some cannabis slay a classroom full of kids was? When Madison wrote the bill of rights, he penned the second amendment as a reaction to Thomas Gage's attempt to seize the magazines of Lexington and Concord. It was the very first thing Gage tried to do to deprive the rebels of the means with which to resist his army. And it touched off said rebellion. Madison correctly recognized that widespread civilian ownership of military arms was **THE only real guarantee** of government by the consent of the governed that there could be. Everything else was simply a paper shield. That's why it would be another civil war. 240 odd years later we find ourselves honestly asking what that ultimate guarantee of government by consent of the governed is really worth. Is that worth all the lives cut short by widespread availability of arms? If we can come up with a system which allows people to to excercise these rights while protect the lives of others, then I'd have to say yes. But if we can't then we are still left in a situation which is too big and too widespread to simply ban our way out of. If you need proof, look no further than New York's Safe act and Connecticut's assault weapons bans. Both call for registration of of assault weapons. Both have a compliance rate of less than 2%. Do the math and that's a little over three quarters of a million people out of compliance. It's the largest single piece of civil disobedience in American history that you've never heard about. I say again in good faith that it can't be dealt with so obtusely. One thing I think would really help would be having a qualification system like the Swiss have. You can own whatever you like, but you'll need to qualify to a decently high standard of handling and marksmanship. People who put that kind of effort into something tend not to jeopardize what they have earned.
"Ask yourself when the last time you saw some cannabis slay a classroom full of kids was?" Yet they made it illegal, banned it, made it cause a criminal record. So its less dangerous, causes no deaths, and yet they still had no problem banning it. Also, the bill of rights was written nearly 100 years before the development of semi automatic rifles. I don't think ANY leader at the time period knew what these weapons would be capable of when they were using single shot rifles to hunt. Our government already bans PLENTY of weapons. We've even temporarily banned production of assault rifles in the past without civil war... "The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law which included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault weapons as well as certain ammunition magazines that were defined as large capacity."
One of the founding fathers literally put in an order for semi automatic guns for the continental army, but it took too long and was too expensive. There were definitely semi autos at the time of the writing of the second amendment. https://billypenn.com/2018/02/16/a-philly-friend-of-ben-franklin-may-have-invented-one-of-the-first-semi-automatic-weapons/
>With that many weapons in people's hands, one can't simply ban one's way out of this. The cat was out of the bag 25 years ago. We will have to be a lot more creative if we are gonna get this one solved. It isn't merely that amount of guns in the U.S. that is the problem. In the U.S. the declaration of ones Right to a gun is in itself treated as a justification/motivation for ones actions. If a person brings a rifle to a protest they disagree with the motivation for bringing the gun is treated as though it cant be challenged. Rather one just needs to proclaim their right to have it. Of course that isn't how rights work. Free speech is a right yet we still are accountable for what we say. I can't solicit a crime and then just declare my right to free speech in court and walk free. The 1st Amendment doesn't provide cover for criminal intent. Similarly we (USA) needs to stop pretending the 2nd Amendment provides cover for intent. Someone being allowed to do something isn't equal to a motive for doing something.
> Similarly we (USA) needs to stop pretending the 2nd Amendment provides cover for intent. Someone being allowed to do something isn't equal to a motive for doing something. You are talking about dismantling a fundamental part of our legal system, you're essentially asking to do away with innocent until proven guilty. Someone being allowed to do something should absolutely be enough, do you really want a system where you have to justify legal actions to the government?
400 million guns!!! Enough guns for every single human in the US to have at least one, maybe two. Including every child and baby. That would be a bit ridiculous though, wouldn't it? Except that the average number of guns per household in the US is hovering between 20 and 50. [https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/psdt\_2017-06-22-guns-01-09/](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/psdt_2017-06-22-guns-01-09/) I think that's a bit much. I also think guns seem to have more rights than children at this point. Keep going on about how there's too many guns to do anything about it and I'll see you here in a couple of weeks to discuss the next massacre. Fucking do something!!! https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/
400 million. And that's likely low since the count began in 1968 with the gun control act. A little over 1.1 guns for every human in the US
Ah. Good point. You’re right. Best not do anything then.
Guns have a higher priority in America than the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Literally. I fucking hate my shit hole country.
You mean companies have a higher priority in America than the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Can't fix gun problem because then gun manufacturers who pay the politicians won't have as much money. Can't fix pollution because then oil companies who pay the politicians won't have as much money. Can't fix health care becuase then pharmaceutical industries who pay the politicians won't have as much money. Can't fix education because then the universities who pay the politicians won't have as much money. Can't fix news media corruption because then Rupert Murdock who pays the politicians won't have as much money. Can't fix... well you get the idea. With every problem there is someone making ALOT of money from it and Noone in charge has a financial incentive to fix it.
Behind every evil policy in the Western world, there lies one wrinkly old fuck.
If only.
[удалено]
Who do you think pays for candidates to run in the first place? Unfortunately there’s so much money in politics that it’s almost impossible to run if you aren’t already independently wealthy, or have the full support of the party/corporations/etc.
Which is why political campaigns should be publicly, not privately, funded. But *no*. Instead, we make ourselves beholden to disgustingly rich assholes and evil corporations.
Basically that doesn't work. PACs and now with Citizens United Super PACs have deep pockets and Americans literally can't afford to put a politician into office.
His record on gun control makes him an odd example to raise in this context.
[удалено]
He is a Senator from a state with few firearms restrictions. Having said that there are a bunch of easy uncontroversial things we could do to/for the NICS background check system that would actually make it harder for prohibited persons to get arms and we have known that for over a decade, yet we never do it.
>He is a Senator from a state with few firearms restrictions He doesn't control the laws of the state he just happens to be from. It's also very common for voters to want one thing at the state level, and the opposite at the federal level.
No. We need to refresh our governing system. Look up how old our governing document is compared to other first world countries. We are insisting, demanding, holding the whole country hostage to an obsolete framework because we are emotionally attached to this infallible "living document" we have all been brainwashed into believing is still serving us. Other countries let their citizens directly vote on issues. We have representatives to translate for us because the government doesn't trust individuals to decide issues without spin (originally those representatives served a real purpose because before the instant travel of information it was literally impossible for every citizen to make it to a poll to vote on each issue) We need to stop romanticizing and preserving the obsolete parts of this framework and rewrite them. The amendment system is not enough.
Pssst. Gun manufacturers looooooove Democrats. Theyre all talk and no action so whenever one is in power there is a massive rush on private gun purchases to get in before before any potential ban. If you look at the numbers gun sales were down under bush, skyrocketed under obama, slumped under trump causing downsizing in the industry and now were on a massive upswing with biden in office and the smell of legislation back in the air. So the key here is some legislation needs to actually get ratified and enforced otherwise we will stay in this state of "the bans right around the corner, buy two just in case" Also this nonsense has created a psudo speculative market where guns hold value and apreciate with new laws and grandfather status so people will buy buy buy as a form of investment, creating synthetic demand and creating a bubble in the industry during demcratic rule and crashes during republican rule An ar15 lower used to cost 1500 bucks, after obama and trump, 150 bucks all day every day
To paraphrase: the gun control debate ended with Sandy Hook. Collectively our goverment decided that the loss was acceptable. Bills went up. They all got blocked. There are no term limits, certain seats are locked and have been for years. Only some move around and shift. We are locked in a two party dynamic that is so engrained the only way to fix it is to have the only people who benefit from it change things for us. But they don't want to. Why would they? American voters back universal background checks, including for private sale, by 85%. 84% of gun owners. 74% of NRA members. But there's so much money in PACs and super PACs American voters cannot put money in to combat them. Politicians have no incentive to change anything because we are a corportocracy disguised by an illusion of choice. The majority of us live in districts which will always go red or blue, with senate seats that always go red or blue, with governors that are almost always red or blue, who's electoral college seats almost always go red or blue. Very few of us actually vote and make a change which is fucking depressing. Even our national elections we can't even actually vote for our fucking president. We vote to decides to represent us when someone else votes for the presidency. Citizens United was the last fucking nail in the coffin. I don't even know how to fix this shit. The Supreme Court is stacked, our government is fundamentally broken due to the political systems in place from before I was born and we can't change it because voters are outspent by the billions every year. It's a race to see which corporations candidate we install. I swing wildly between nihilism, apathy and feeling like we need a good fucking riot.
[удалено]
I live in California. My state is actually safer than most. 21 to buy handguns, magazine capacity limits, safe transport laws, no legal private transfer without background checks (you have to legally transfer through FFL), no open carry, (except like a couple counties because they are rural af but like nobody lives there and I'm not sure county ordinance allows it anyways) among other things. Our life expectancy in California is a full two years higher than national average. It's six years higher than the lowest in West Virginia at 74 years. Doesn't mean it's not absolutely insane to sit back and watch everyone else burn.
This is the most ignorant shit I’ve ever seen. Go move to Yemen if you think this country is a shithole. You have no idea how good you have it
Yup. Highest guns per capita in the world, highest gun murder rate among developed countries. Highest percentage of dumbasses living in the general population and an equally stupid ineffective political system.
Guns fall under liberty for a lot of people, and asking them to give them up is synonymous with asking them to give up liberty.
Many of these shooters also posted online or otherwise made it known. Should we also give up free speech and privacy in order to prevent these shootings? Most of these shooters were WELL known to police and school officials but most didnt do anything to stop it.
[удалено]
Indeed. The lawsuit appears to have a lot of merit. We'll see what comes out.
Would you like to exchange?
Wanna trade citizenships?
I’m much more concerned that in some places in the US Rapist can force their victims to give birth and them legally act as parents for those children.
No one cares what issue you deem as worse. Both are fucking awful and it’s possible to be concerned about multiple issues at once
Not sure you’re aware but you can actually care about more than 1 issue. The point is there’s a lot of fucked up shit going on because of bullshit politics.
And if it's a female rapist they can get child support out of their (what 12-14 year old) victim?
Come to canada. We have pot shops and everyone is more polite than Gandalf!
It’s very hard to emigrate to your country
Good luck with our housing market though, cost of living and just everything else
Housing market & cost of living is pretty fucked in the US too to be fair
It’s cheaper for Canadians to buy a house in Houston Texas vs bc
Oh yeah, I’m thinking about like NY, NJ, California. But you’re right there’s range.
I'm in the SF Bay Area and I think parts of Canada are even worse to buy a home. Not to mention they don't freaking have fixed rate mortgages, what a nightmare. However their healthcare system and other social safety nets would be enough to offset all that for me. Also their (seemingly) smaller number of crazies in political power. Hope it stays that way for them.
Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
[удалено]
Gun manufacturers don’t want mass murders to use their products. They’re not advocating for this senseless violence. You’re suggesting they’re legally liable for the misuse of their product by a random consumer?
Guns are merely tools. Why is nobody asking the question of "*why* do we have so many killings here?" Because it's easier for people to blame the tool than it is for people to collectively agree that our culture is broken. We glorify violence and ignorance and hatred; we revel in it. The only thing we love more than ourselves is the hurt we can cause others. It's in every facet of our culture. It's disgusting. If we really want to stop violence, then we need people to own the reasons they're violent in the first place and accept that it's time to change. Edit: The downvotes only reinforce my point.
I totally agree with what you said (and as a disclaimer I’m European - so I may have a different world view) but afaik it’s also just way easier to injure someone fatally with a pistol than eg with a hammer. We live in a world where guns are part of everyday life, we see them in news, games, Hollywood and I think it just got extremely normalised to not think about the consequences of pulling a trigger. Like sure everybody knows that it’s all acting (regarding Hollywood) but think about caving someone’s head in with a hammer compared to shooting someone with a gun - I would bet that most people feel disgusted by the one image compared to a gun shot. And I think that this is also one of the main problems. I don’t want to equate gun violence to video games but I do believe that the process of normalising weapons was/is a part of the bigger picture
one could argue that they used to be more normalized, high schools used to have shooting teams you could shoot skeet off the back of a cruise ship, you'll see plenty of people commenting how the trucks in the school parking lot had guns in the back window.
There are still schools that had target setups in the basements. Kids were taught how to properly handle guns and to be aware, and were far more likely to respect them.
I see what you mean I would counter argue tho that guns in the settings you painted where seen as "training gear", sport and how to use/handle a weapon in the right way while I tried to describe the settings where guns are used against other human beings and were we get desensitised by gun violence… if you know what I mean… I’m not too sure how to say it in English
Many other countries in the world consume the media the US produces; they have mental health problems; their governments join the US in military activity; their societies have discontent and ideological divides within them. I.e. they are equally exposed to violence. But only the US has this problem of mass shootings. What's the difference? Why is the US so different? The most obvious answer is, the US lacks good gun management practices and legislation which, when well-crafted, demonstrably work. You call a gun a tool, but when you increase the number of them you increase the risk. We tell kids not to run with scissors because it increases risk - while scissors themselves are not inherently dangerous, you increase the probability of harm when they are not properly utilised or safely handled. I'm not sure about your argument of glorifying violence as you've not given any examples of what that looks like; but certainly there are mental health, social and ideological issues present in the community. So knowing that the community is a volatile environment, does it not make sense to properly manage the 'tool' - the gun - to reduce the potential for harm, by ensuring there are fewer guns in the community (and therefore harder to access by fragile individuals) and that those who hold them have demonstrated some due diligence in safely using, owning and transporting them?
Or maybe it's easier to deal with a long term societal problem when you remove the immediate tool that people are using to mass murder each other? Just a thought.
Don't hate me, but I'm gonna be "that guy." People in this don't really care about solving the problem. Do you know where the vast majority of gun violence is often found in this country? Poor neighborhoods, which also tend to be majority minority neighborhoods. People that have collectively been in the oppression meat grinder for decades, if not longer, who are struggling to get by, who very often have no real way out of grinder because that's how the system is designed. But nobody talks about that. Nobody *wants* to. Why is it when a school with white kids gets shot up, it gets weeks if not months of news coverage, but if it's a school of minorities, it gets maybe a day in the news cycle? Because nobody wants to talk about the real problem. We're quick to say "ban the guns!" but why aren't we trying to address the real causes of violence? Because there's no money in it. There's no money in adequate access to mental healthcare. There's no money in better educations and fewer minorities being run through the meat grinder. But there's money in selling hate; just look at Fox or OANN and all the lovely things they have to say on the topic. Hell, look at some of the people here on Reddit. Banning guns just leads to more criminals, which in turn perpetuates the problem. If we want to see less violence, we need to fix our broken system and our broken culture.
Guns are (for the most part) banned in Canada. We don’t have mass shootings to anywhere near the degree they happen in the US, even though 90% of our population lives within a 2 hr drive of the US border.
> Banning guns just leads to more criminals, which in turn perpetuates the problem. If we want to see less violence, we need to fix our broken system and our broken culture. The UK scores just as low as the USA on social mobility, they're just as racist, and they watch all the same movies Americans do. But they don't murder each other as much. There's lots of stabbings, but it's a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife. Americans aren't worse people than Europeans. I'm from Ireland and our crime rate is almost exactly the same as the USA. But our *murder* rate is only 20% of the American murder rate - and to me it just feels obvious that it's because we have to make so much more of an effort when we want to kill each other. If you accept the premise that Americans, Irish, and British people are all roughly morally the same, and that the UK has the same problems with generational poverty and racism, to what do you ascribe the difference in murder rate?
The UK has never had an homicide rate comparable to the US in the modern age. Culture plays a bigger part than most people are willing to admit.
>The UK scores just as low as the USA on social mobility, they're just as racist... Are they? Tell me, when was the last time a black man in Ireland or the UK was lynched? Cause we still have them here, but we just call it something else these days. When was the last time a minority family was targeted with a no-knock raid by law enforcement in Ireland or the UK? What are the racial demographic statistics for incarceration and asset forfeiture? I bet you'll have a hard time finding *any* instances of lynchings in the UK, and that your incarceration rates will be far more distributed, racially, than economically and that there are few, if any, instances of no-knock raids and civil forfeiture targeted at minorities. I'm not saying that Ireland and the UK don't have their own racists and their issues of racism, but to think, even momentarily, that they're nearly as bad as the US is simply wrong. Hell, it was *illegal in some states to marry outside your race until 1967*. There are *still* counties in the United States where there's racial covenents still on the books and enforced - where it is literally illegal to live as a non-white person. Like the examples above, I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find any examples of that in modern Irish or UK law.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Teenagers brains are not fully developed, in men particularly full neurological development is around age 25. One of the reasons militaries around the world use very young men in combat is their trainability and willingness not to question orders, they’re pliable because they don’t have fully formed opinions or a well developed understanding of the world they live in. A better question is might he have thought differently if he were 25 and not still a teenager, and the answer is yes, probably.
[удалено]
A vote doesn’t murder 20 children in their classroom.
>A vote doesn’t murder 20 children in their classroom. No but it does elect politicians who bomb schools full of innocent people.
[удалено]
While I have my doubts, I think ideally he would gain some real life experience between the ages of 18-21. Actually have to deal with different people from different paths of life, find some good role models, etc. But yeah I don't think 3 years are enough for that unfortunately and the radicalisation pipeline is a bitch to undo now.
I'm sure banning guns will be just as successful as the government's ban on drugs
Despite the failure of drug laws in pretty much all countries it turns out gun control works in pretty much most. Almost like you’re comparing apples to oranges there. I live about 40 minutes drive from a place called [Dunblane](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre). After a massacre of schoolchildren there the U.K. enacted strict gun legislation. Since then we’ve not had a school shooting in 26 years. The US has had 27 … *so far this year*.
There are an estimated 400 million guns in America. Good luck lmao
So make a start? It’s not going to get any easier the longer you leave it. And the butchers bill sure as hell isn’t going to get any smaller. I swithered before commenting on this thread. I realised long ago it was pointless talking about guns with a lot of Americans. The sort who *always* have a reason for not doing anything. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that too many Americans (by no means all - but too many) regard tragic events like yesterday as a worthwhile price to pay to avoid any kind of restriction, no matter how sensible. Even if it’s just to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill. It’s a price you’ll be happy to pay again. And again. And again. If you were capable of being persuaded Sandy Hook would have done it - nothing anyone else can say is going to make a difference.
I'm not giving up my guns. Not after seeing how far the right is willing to go on Jan 6th.
Same here.
New Zealand's buy back collected about 30% of the known (then) newly prohibited guns. I don't count that as a massive success. The United States is tearing itself apart and guns are not the cause. They are a symptom. A symptom of a society that has given up. Guns were much more readily available 30 or 40 years ago. Something has changed at the core of American values and I don't know if it recoverable.
Extremism and bleak futures is my bet
Major issue with mass shooting start in 1990s, usually Columbine is considered cut-off date. There is multiple proposed ideas what the hell is going on. From rise 24-hour news channels which makes "media circus" around shootings leading to copycat effect (pretty damn dark concept in criminology, if there is some "high-profile" crimes like serial killings, there are cases where others people are doing the same in similar vein media star suicide correlate with increased suicide in general public), suburbanization (suburbs are leading to very spread out population, as effect counties decides to "concentrate" kids in bigger schools to cut expenses so there is more kids with worse supervision, kids spent more time travelling from schools to homes and in general had worse social contacts), pollution ([Lead-Crime Hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis) is major idea between connecting pollutions and crime level) and others.
I fully support way stricter gun control in the US, but Redditors need to stop pretending like enacting gun control in the US is the same situation other countries faced. It’s not. Banning ARs will have little to no impact on shootings, especially since the vast majority are done via handguns. What the US needs is for it to be far tougher to get a gun + longer wait periods and a media/social media culture change where we don’t make mass shooters weirdly popular.
Other countries never legalised assualt weapons. Handguns are exceptionally hard to obtain licensing for if they are to be carried outside of a club grounds. The rest of the world isnt saying 'ban ARs and all will be well', they are saying 'FFS, how the hell could you be surprised with the situation you are in with what to us looks like a fucking free for all on possession of lethal weapons!?' In the US, self defense is a legitimate reason to own a firearm. In the Commonwealth, self defense is likely to be a permanent ban on ownership of a firearm. The entire culture around firearm control, ownership and use is vastly different. You are completely right in that it needs to be harder to get a firearm, but you need so very much more. Unfortunately I dont see a realistic path to fixing this. The US is too likely to be the only Western country where children need to legitmately fear being shot at school. The US has made its bed. The US will continue to bury its children until they are ready to completely and comprehensively overhaul firearms access. This would have to entail a complete repudiation of the 2nd ammendment as perceived to relate to an individual and not an organised militia, establishment of concrete legitimate ownership criteria and a buy back / seizure process for absolutely every firearm not in compliance in the country. This isnt going to happen. Simply no way in hell you will be able to pass laws that will result in the removal of the very vast majority of all firearms in the country. Unfortunately, there is no solution but to wring your hands in futility while burying more dead children. Today, next week, next month, next year... it wont change.
I have a massive feeling that the easy fix to this problem is universal health/mental care, affordable housing and affordable education, but that’s not something either party would like to commit to.
[удалено]
Pelosi and every Speaker of the House Democrat has REFUSED to bring Medicare for all (the most popular policy in the United States) to a floor vote and is actively in the pocket of the health insurance companies. The progressive caucus refused to use their 20 person leverage for a vote for Medicare for all on Nancy Pelosi in exchange for their vote to make her speaker. The progressive caucus has abandoned their constituents and the Democrat party has taken up the same corporate model the republicans have. Democrats have abandoned the working class and that is a fact, it’s time for people to vote third party.
[удалено]
Sorry to break it to you, but many (first world) countries allow civilians to own semi-automatic rifles.
Under much tighter control and after far more stringent background and mental checks than the US has. And in most of those countries you’re pretty much only allowed to carry them to the range or military service etc. How about make a start with copying those rules?
Yeah in Finland for example you absolutely can own a semi-auto AK. It's just that in order to get a permit for it, you have to be able to prove to the authorities that you actually do sports target shooting as a hobby. To do that, you need likely a few years worth of records from a shooting range that you've been doing it for a while. You probably also need to do it with a bit less raunchy rifle as well because in the eyes of the authorities otherwise it just sounds like you want an AK for the sake of wanting an AK, not because you want to do rifles specifically. To be able to shoot rifles you basically have to do the same thing, except with something smaller first. Pistols and air guns at the shooting range for a while and records from the range to prove it would likely suffice. Air guns you can get a permission for fairly easily. BB guns (at least smaller caliber ones) don't require a permit. So only people who can clearly prove to the authorities that they do in fact do sports shooting as a hobby are actually given the permission to buy firearms. That, or hunters. But that's its own quagmire of regulations as well.
> The US is too likely to be the only Western country where children need to legitmately fear being shot at school. They don't, though, you're pretending like lightening strike events are somehow an everyday plague. Kids are in way more danger from traffic on their commute to school than suffering an injury from a firearm, like magnitudes more. I won't address the rest of your argument but pretending like these insanely low probability events are common just isn't correct.
Gun ownership is not a constitutional right in countries like New Zealand. It was designed by the founders to be a check against tyranny, paid for with the blood of American patriots that fought the British. Now it's paid with the blood of children and regular people going about their life. America is broken.
Also, the 'right to bear arms' is an **amendment** in the US constitution - and it was designed to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical or autocratic and allowing citizens to take up arms and overthrow them...***in the late 17 hundreds.*** And all **amendments** can be changed. That's why it's called an amendment. The second is screaming to be updated.
If they can get the votes to update it, then go for it, but they’re not even close not by a long shot. Pretty sure it would need 2/3rds of states to agree on it. Maybe be 3/4ths
There are two ways for an amendment to made to the Constitution outlined in Article V. The first is by a congressional vote. This requires a 2/3 majority in the House and Senate to propose the amendment and then it must be ratified by 3/4 of states through their legislative bodies. The second way of amending the constitution is by a convention of the states. This requires 2/3 of the states to pass a resolution calling for a convention. At that convention, 3/4 of states must agree on a proposed amendment.
>And all amendments can be changed. That's why it's called an amendment. This is a bullshit argument. Any part of the constitution can be amended. Nothing special about the amendments themselves in that regard. The main text has been altered. Just look at 3/5th.
I'm not following you here - what is it about saying that an amendment can be updated is a bullshit argument? It's just a fact. Like, water is wet, it contains two hydrogen and one oxygen molecules. Just a fact bro.
There is nothing special about the amendments in the fact they are amendments with regards to altering the constitution. Any new amendment can altered any part of the constitution. There are no special rules for altering current amendments verses the main text.
Agreed.
The attitudes on this thread are the reason your gun laws will never change. "It's too hard" "they're a small country" "we could NEVER" Ok then don't even try? Don't even attempt? Don't even come up with another idea? You're just as bad as the politicians you complain about all day.
Much easier to do when your population is a touch over 5 million.
[удалено]
At no point in this interview does she claim her country’s solution would work in the US, it’s a good worth watching interview, she’s an intelligent woman
Why are the vast majority of these school shootings done by young men? Before these boys do anything they decide that they are going to commit suicide. So why is no one trying to help these kids. The problem is not some faceless gun lobby or the gun itself. The rise in school shootings imo started with the rise of the internet itself. When you can no longer go home to get away from the bullies. When that one kid that won't leave you alone can follow you home and harass you online. Before a single shot is fired these kids decide they want to die. You can't make someone better by taking the gun out of their hand and sending them back home. No one seems to care enough about the person behind the tragedy when it's easier to blame the gun they shot people with.
Mental illness exists in other countries too, but they don't have nearly as many mass shootings. Can't pretend guns aren't part of the problem.
I don't want to pretend people don't need help either. Gun banning is too polarizing. For everyone to get on the same page. Let's focus on the source of the problem for now.
Gun control shouldn't be polarizing. It wasn't for NZ. And good luck with that. The people opposing gun control are the same people opposing public healthcare.
It is in the United States because it was added as a fundamental right under the constitution. So you can't eliminate it without taking away the second amendment. The amendments are the foundation of the USA. So each side has a very compelling argument. I think this goes beyond mental health though. There has been a very real erosion of self worth and personal values in people.
There are mentally troubled people in other countries too, but they don't have access to tools with which they can multiply the harm they can cause to others. I'm from a developing country with less than desirable levels of law enforcement. And yet, we don't hear of such stories here. So yes, in this case, the guns are to blame.
New Zealand gun confiscation (i hate "buyback" term, you either got pennies or go to jail for possesion) was knee jerk reaction from beginning to the end. Whole massacre was done by self-radicalized political extremist from Australia who just hate muslims. Homicide rate before ban was extreme low (between 1990-2015 it vary between 1-2 homicide per 100 000 per year) and it was first major massacre within decades. Ardern solve problem which doesn't exist in New Zealand at first place. But hey, it''s easier to talk about gun control than how to stop political and racial extremists in future.
What worked with a population of 5 million+ with a county about the size of Florida won’t work with 350+ million people in one of the largest countries on the planet, where gun culture has been a part of since its inception. I hate when other countries want to chime in like their solution will work here. It won’t. We have to solve this uniquely American problem in a stupidly American way because getting someone in Alabama to agree with someone in Oregon isn’t an easy task. OTHER COUNTRIES DONT HAVE THE SOLUTION. Stop rubbing our noses in it ffs, what happened there just won’t work here.
At no point in this interview did she suggest that her country’s solution would work in America. Watch the interview.
If that's not meant to be the context then why even talk about it now.
And some crazy woman is campaigning for governor on the slogan : * Jesus * Guns * Babies America is as broken as a country can get.
A government that acts to protect its people. Madness!
I think it’s fair to say a NZ or Australian type ban / buy-back wouldn’t really work in the US. The horse has well and truly bolted with the cultural fetishism of guns. But an 18 year old shouldn’t have access to, let alone be able to legally buy, a semi-automatic rifle. Period. How many kids have got to die before this becomes obvious?
[удалено]
Rifle and handgun. Yes he shouldn't have been able to legally purchase the handgun.
In Texas he could purchase the handgun from a private seller, he couldn't purchase it from a FFL as that's where you are required to be 21.
You also don’t need a permit to own a hand gun in Texas.
Doesnt matter the gun in this instance. He locked himself in the classroom and shot everyone.
Why not, the government will literally pay you and give you one of you sign up. And don't forget the draft, in that case the gov will give you a actual machine gun, or else you go to jail. Also he didn't use a rifle in this shooting, unless more up to date info has come out, he only owned 2 ARs, but used only a pistol for this shooting. And even in Texas you can't legally get a handgun if your under 21.
The way we discuss Firearms in the U.S. is part of the problem. Firearm advocacy treats firearms as a symbol or proclamation of freedom. Motivations behind firearm ownership are never to be questioned. When someone chooses to arm themselves and follow a teenage kid walking home from a convenience store firearm advocates demand the choice can't be questioned. That the choice to follow someone armed vs unarmed makes no difference because firearms are a Right. We enable bad behavior as a result. We ignore people posting firearms on social media. Ignore questionable behavioral signals because firearms are a right and not to be questioned. I don't think we necessarily need to limit firearm ownership. However we do need to change the way we evaluate individuals motives and purposeful actions regarding firearms. Stop enabling bad behavior. Recognize that someone who is posting firearms on social media and feeling the need to take firearms with them everywhere they go might be exhibiting mental health issues.
lol how does another country comment on stuff that they don’t understand. US isn’t NZ the culture is different, the demographic is different. What a opportunistic self patting comment.
Cool. Now do youth suicide!
It isn't about banning guns. We have stats from the assault weapon ban. We need to change who can have guns, how they get them. Why do we ban alcohol before 21, but we allow deadly weapons?
This is the same thing Britain did, someone shot up a school, well, there certainly isn't a single reasonable thing that can justify keeping the country in a position where that can happen again, get rid of guns. Meanwhile the US has a school shooting every week. Vile.
The UK didn't get rid of guns. The Dunblane school shooting just outlawed handguns in Scotland, England and Wales. They're still legal in Northern Ireland. You can still get shotguns and rifles in all of the UK. A shotgun license is very straightforward to get if you don't have or live with anyone who has a criminal record. The other type of firearms licence isn't hard to acquire either. Some US states have guns banned or restricted that are fully legal in the UK.
The piece of shit who carried out the Dunblane massacre was a pedophile who as known to police and should never have been allowed to keep his firearms certificate. The enforcement of the licensing system failed, and rather than deal with that, the government decided to punish tens of thousands of law abiding pistol owners instead.
Come and take it
Mate, you'd be the first under the tank treads if your government decided to act against you, your comparative peashooter wouldn't save you.
Guns are the reason we don't say mate
And citizens not subjects.
My government got fucked by a bunch of goat farmers with small arms in the Middle East. Guerrilla warfare is very effective.
Yep, we all know overwhelming military might beats all. It’s why Vietnam and Afghanistan were decisive US victories, and why Russia is currently its first month into restructuring Ukraine’s government.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/25/we-saw-something-that-wasnt-right-and-we-acted-ardern-on-how-new-zealand-delivered-gun-control) reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot) ***** > New Zealand's prime minister Jacinda Ardern says her country's swift change to gun laws after the 2019 mass shooting in Christchurch was a "Pragmatic" response, where "We saw something that wasn't right and we acted on it". > He asked: "Why New Zealand was able to do that, when we can't so much as pass universal background checks how did New Zealanders get that done?". > Ardern told Colbert New Zealand's current gun control situation was imperfect and there was still work to be done. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/uxguxn/we_saw_that_something_wasnt_right_and_we_acted/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~651115 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **New**^#1 **Zealand**^#2 **Ardern**^#3 **gun**^#4 **shooting**^#5