This guy was previously admitted by a mental hospital and was up for mental evaluation. Proper gun control would mean he wouldn’t have been able to buy that rifle.
Honestly, proper gun control would mean that someone with that diagnosis completely loses access to guns - and yes, that means that his own guns should have been confiscated.
However, we get this after every mass shooting: people say that it’s not guns, it’s a mental health issue. But as soon as concrete measures are suggested that would keep guns out of the hands of someone who’s mentally unstable, those same people will yell at you “SHaLl NoT bE InFRinGeD!!1!1!!”
If the US wasn’t so hung up on the Constitution guns would have already been banned. They give basically anyone extreme executive power, none should have that.
In countries where gun control laws do exist even military personnel are not allowed weapons outside of assigned duties. Partially because anyone can go mad, like this, but mostly because administratively it’s easier to just say no one should have a gun then to try and work out who has a legitimate exception.
It’s not that America is hung up on guns per se. It’s that the corporations are allowed to dictate the conversation by pouring money into loudmouths and social media farms, and ultimately the laws themselves by -corrupting- lobbying lawmakers.
Funnily enough, foreign power also found that they can play that same game and funnel money to create chaos. Just look at the other thread that points to russian money funding the new speaker’s 2018 campaign…
The Constitution isn’t the ultimate authority in the universe it’s just what people 200 years ago thought would make a good country.
It’s extremely amperable but it has basically nothing to do with her current world. It’s extremely amarable but also utterly ridiculous to apply its principles to the current political system.
Some do, some don’t. Some just interpret the phrase differently. Some would say guns are already one of the most regulated products so they’re already “well-regulated.” Also the Supreme Court ruled in Heller that despite it saying “militia” the phrase really means individual people, meaning individual people have the fundamental right to possess firearms, etc. So, I think most of these people are not disregarding it, they’re interpreting it a different way. It’s the SCOTUS official interpretation, so it’s not like it’s a crackpot idea even if it’s ultimately wrong. I know I disagree with SCOTUS on a ton of stuff.
Mask off, I want to live. Mask off, I think people should be able to be in public without being randomly murdered by some one having a bad day. Mask off, I think that is a more important right than the right to keep and bear arms.
It’s the only tool that seems to result in random people dying by the dozens while they go about their everyday life every few months when one person has a bad day.
Brand new AR-15s are available for $400 all day long. It’s not even a week’s rent most places. Poverty isn’t keeping people from arming themselves.
It’s not poverty.
But you’re right. Technically.
There are plenty of people in this country living well above the poverty line without the means to care for themselves, due to the extreme cost of healthcare, shelter and food. Nobody in this country should have to struggle for any of these basic human necessities.
And yet here we are, arguing about the price of guns in a country that invented school lunch debt.
Depends what you mean by that. Someone who suffers from a mental health issue (or really any other health issue) can suddenly become too poor to afford proper care.
Assault style weapons are expensive.
You people keep using these generic terms without ever explaining what they mean. You can get a semi-automatic handgun (which is responsible for the overwhelming majority of firearm deaths) for ~$200 or a bare-bones AR-15 (which the entire category of “rifles” is responsible for fewer deaths than literally just hands and feet) for ~$300.
I’m not trying to parse out the difference between lever action, semi auto, assault style, assault rifle, etc… That’s all besides the point of my original supposition: poverty does not cause mass shootings.
There are millions of people in poverty and none of them are doing mass shootings. They’re almost all lower middle and middle class people going on these senseless rampages.
Kinda hard to do a mass shooting without guns, don’t ya think?
But still trivially easy to commit all different kinds of mass murder, such as the Nice, France truck attack that killed more people than any mass shooting in history.
No problem, I see it now. There’s just currently a lot of pro-gun people insisting that every single social problem must be solved before we can do anythjng about guns.
The states is fucked, but if you think other countries dont have problems with mental health and poverty, but maybe 1 mass shooting in the last 50 years, then I dont know what to tell you
Become hyper wealthy and then abuse everyone underneath you. No one in power wants there to be a social ladder, because if there was a social ladder people might try and climb it.
While I agree that gun control is a good thing I strongly doubt it will eliminate the issue as it’s only addressing the symptom, not the cause. Free healthcare, fair education and equal rights to achieve something in life are far more important triggers. Of course those require much deeper adjustments to the system and society as a whole.
The rest of the world that has similar issues with shit wages and shit mental health services but nowhere near the gun violence per capita beg to differ
Yeah, you’re gonna have to be, like, a lot more specific than “the rest of the world”…
Most of the world doesn’t enjoy the level of firearm freedoms that we do, so it should be unsurprising that they have a lower level of “gun deaths”. This does not mean they have a lower level of deaths, and still dozens of other countries that don’t enjoy any level of freedom at all because they lack the capacity to fight back against oppressive and tyrannical governments.
While gun grabbers like to microfocus on “gun violence”, sensible people take a holistic approach to “violence” in discussion.
It DOES mean more deaths when you are talking about the western world. Guns are a tool that are made specifically to KILL PEOPLE, they are remarkably good at it. Yes, you do have a higher level of firearm freedom from the rest of the world, and that is exactly why you have a spree shooting problem
Guns are a tool that are made specifically to KILL PEOPLE
And steak knives are tools that are designed to consume food but they still KILL PEOPLE all the same. Not sure what your point is.
Yes, you do have a higher level of firearm freedom from the rest of the world, and that is exactly why you have a spree shooting problem
Except we’ve ALWAYS had a higher level of firearm freedom. But these incidents have only been become popular in the last 30 years, in which time our firearm freedoms (and freedoms in general) have only seen more and more restrictions.
US states with the highest level of gun violence are ALSO the states with the highest level of gun restrictions.
My point is a gun can kill a LOT more people, a LOT faster, with LESS skill than any other comparable tool, which means more people can kill more victims before something is able to stop them, the kill count from a mass shooting is almost always higher than a mass stabbing. And good luck if you think your civilian firearms would be enough to take on your state of the art army. If the Army had the will to oppress its own citizens, it could, and whether or not its citizens were armed would factor very little in that will
You may not have technically said it but you were implying it. Or maybe you just meant that a truck is comparable or equal to guns? Why exactly are you bringing up trucks? You are trying to distract from the very valid and obvious fact that guns are designed to kill and some gun platforms are designed to kill people in combat situations and those designs that are picked by the military for very good reasons are also picked by these people for pretty much the same set of reasons. A truck, given the right specific set of circumstances can be devastating and yet the military and these scum bag shooters pick guns because they are designed to be a highly effective killing tool in pretty much any circumstance. Goodbye goober.
To my knowledge, most countries require YEARS of training and certification in order to be able to drive a vehicle, for that very reason dumbass. Do mass vehicular murder incidents happen as much as mass shootings? No
60 years ago, US citizens could mail order guns to their doorstep and shooting clubs were common place in schools, yet mass shootings like we see today were unheard of. Violence in the US has slowly decreased over time, just as it has in other western countries, but gun violence hasn’t dropped at a faster rate than that, which indicates that gun control hasn’t impacted gun violence. Increased gun control =/= decreased gun violence.
The European countries that people point to as counter examples to this don’t have mass shootings or gun violence because gun ownership is nearly or outright impossible. Gun culture is vilified, self defense is basically illegal, and owning a gun (in countries that allow it) requires so many hoops to jump through that it’s hardly worth doing. Some people feel this level of government control is a good thing, but it’s inconsistent with the US 2nd amendment.
If the goal is to eliminate gun violence, then guns need banned. The US can’t do that without amending their Constitution. Gun control that maintains ownership will never eliminate gun violence, so calls for more gun control will never stop.
In order to maintain gun rights and decrease gun violence, people should ask what changed between now and 60 years ago.
Your northern Neighbor, where I live, has had ONE mass shooting in recent memory, and that was in the 1980’s. You can buy guns here for hunting, and even non hunting guns for shit like farms and shooting ranges. Yes its a LOT harder to get a gun here, but if you want one and dont have mental health or abuse issues that’d make people uncomfortable with you owning one, you can jump through the hoops to get one. Every SINGLE other country has shown that increased gun control means less gun violence. On the topic of amending the Constitution… you do realize your sacred gun rights CAME from an amendment? Its fucking batshit that you consider a system thay worked when we hadnt even flown a plane yet is still workable for this day and age. The times have changed, gun laws need to change with them.
Preach brother. That and the mental health crisis. Which is probably caused by poor standards of living. But hey I wouldn’t be surprised if micro plastics ended up having an effect on mental health.
What was he doing with a usable bolt in that weapon? We typically had to sign them out for the one day a week we needed them on-base. And there’s No Way a reservist would have something like that.
Well, might as well allow everyone to drive cars unrestrictedly since some crazy fucks every once in a while decide to DUI or drive without a license. Nothing can go wrong, right?
Sure they are. Look at the car-jacking numbers in countries with gun control. They literally just lock the doors and drive away.
Sorry if that’s not bloodthirsty enough for you but we’re not obligated to tolerate monthly mass shootings just because you get a hard on thinking about your “get out of murder free” card.
Did you really think people were going to line up to suck you off for protecting yourself from the gun violence you’ve enabled?
Wow. I’m not even interested in engaging in such a vulgar discussion. Call me when you get your shit under control and are ready to have an adult discussion.
You’re in a 4chan community, commenting on a screenshot that almost certainly had photos of the murdered men, women and children just off screen, trying to dismiss their killing because “self defense” and your play is pearl clutching?
I hate to break it to you, but I’m not interested in your tone policing, nor your “adult discussion”.
They missed the part where he has a history of mental health issues and had heard voices telling him to kill people. He should have lost access to his guns.
So according to pro-gun talking points, he should have been completely safe to arm. He received the fabled “mental healthcare” that renders people safe to indiscriminately sell guns to.
The lack of laws and lack of enforcement both have their roots in pro-gun groups – the people arguing that guns are blameless and everything is a mental health problem.
It’s something current federal law does and has done for decades. A person who is involuntarily committed to undergo inpatient treatment at a mental health facility by a court of law is classified as a “prohibited person” and cannot own or have access to firearms.
The catch is that a person cannot be deprived of any right without due process - typically a literal day in court. Therefore an individual with mental health problems that have not caused enough trouble to land them in front of a judge can’t be declared a prohibited person.
Due process does not always require a hearing before court action. There are emergency injunctions, ex parte protective orders, temporary restraining orders, certain classes of summary process. When a guy owns assault weapons and is hearing voices, due process can wait a couple weeks.
It’s also the type of legislation thats been applied and immediately abused. So the reason most states don’t have it is that the gov can’t be trusted to have discretion of basic human rights.
Nope, get fucked. You don’t get to insist that actual people get murdered month after month just because you’re capable of imagining legislation being misused.
Even disregarding how deeply fucked in the head it is to be more upset at the idea of a gun owner losing their guns than innocent people losing their lives, you could address that misuse through voting, protest or incremental reforms.
A gun owner losing access to their guns is not a tragedy even remotely comparable to a room full of children mutilated beyond recognition by a legal gun owner and “being able to murder anyone at any time with minimal effort” is not a “basic human right”.
People are being murdered because the gun laws are hopelessly inadequate yet you staunchly oppose changes to them on the grounds that hypothetical people could hypothetically use them to take guns away from a hypothetical innocent person that was no danger.
Ehhhh maybe it’s my American showing, but I’ve known lots of hobbyist clay shooters that are responsible, great people. Not to mention that hunting is more than a hobby to many; it’s a way of life. I don’t think we should police hobbies to that degree. Much moreso, we should have initial and updated background checks on gun owners.
Is every hobbyist clay shooter a good person? Is their hobby worth the lives of innocent people? Not to mention how easy it is to snap and turn bad. It sucks for the good hobbyists but idc if it means less dead children, they can shoot clay with bbs.
Background checks simply don’t work well enough to catch everyone. Mental health issues are hard to spot, it’s not like you can just do a blood test.
Honestly, there are soooo many ways to entertain ourselves in our society, people that center their whole lives around guns need to grow the fuck up imo. Fuck the hobby.
I get the essence of that quote but I feel it falls apart under any scrutiny. Drunk driving laws are widely agreed to be a good idea but that would fall until the category of sacrificing liberty.
And there is exactly where a libertarian’s entire argument falls apart. Rational people obviously know such words are idealistic and hyperbolic, and would ostensibly craft laws to balance personal liberties and public safety. The thing is, there’s a cold truth behind it that is important not to forget or ignore. It hints at the slippery slope of regulation into oppression, and that’s a very real danger to us today as much as it was back then.
No one talks about the slippery slope in the other direction where lack of regulation leads to weekly mass murders. Of course there’s no actual evidence of either of those outcomes happening, right? Right?
How do you figure? As far as I can tell, that conversation happens all the damn time. Not among anyone who SHOULD be having it, but I hear it happen all the time regardless. But you knew that… Same as you knew that there’s an abundance of evidence to prove your sarcasm is seriously unfounded because there’s PLENTY of evidence of both of those things being a thing. I’m beginning to believe that some people are intentionally creating straw man arguments and being deliberately hyperbolic while presenting their arguments as rational and balanced. Weird.
But we all already sacrifice our liberty for security constantly. I sacrifice my liberty to bite anyone I want, in order to live in a society where I’m unlikely to be bitten.
I gave up my freedom by deciding to follow laws. You don’t have to. There are consequences, but if you decide to disappear into the wilderness and avoid people, you can do whatever you want
as someone who has unfortunately had to use a firearm to protect the life of myself and my family, all I hear is “it would be better if you where dead”
I wasn’t aware that hunting was a hobby created after the invention of assault rifles. Pretty sure hunting has been a way of life since forever so I don’t think gun control is going to destroy that hobby.
How can you honestly be arguing hobbies are more important than doing something to protect human lives?
It is already federal law that any gun sale going through a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) is required to run a check using the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICs). So initial already yes, updated “if they buy more guns,” but still.
Private sales are legal in some states but if you sell to a prohibited possessor you’re in deep shit so most people will only do so with a CCW card to show you’ve been NICs checked and it hasn’t been confiscated.
Dude you need a to pass a test and have a license for loads of hobbies, people still do them. Even just driving a regular car which is considered a near necessity in some places, we acknowledge that it’s dangerous so you need to pass a test and can have your licence taken away if you are a danger to others.
Sounds like you’ve let the gun lobby tell you what gun control is.
For example in Australia, to buy a gun you first need a firearms license that is granted once you’ve established that you know how to safely handle a firearm, are not a danger to yourself or others, are not a known criminal and have been a member of a club or range for at least 6 months without creeping people out.
From there, your new guns must be registered and you must be able to produce them on request. Handguns and semi-automatic guns are more heavily restricted, in line with them being far more dangerous to the public.
So do you know what you do if you don’t have a license and want to go clay shooting? You book a session at the range and show up.
No license, no background checks, no knowledge of firearms required.
Because do you want to know the dirty little secret the gun lobby has been hiding from you? Gun control advocates don’t actually give a shit if people own or use guns if they never kill, maim or traumatise anyone.
Systems like the one above massively reduce the supply of guns to criminals, the number of mass shootings, accidental deaths, suicides, domestic violence homicides.
Meanwhile, in America, the pro-gun crowds ideal gun laws can’t even stop a teenager with a history of death threats, rape threats and animal abuse from legally buying two semi automatic weapons, mere days before he used them to kill a room full of children.
That’s what gun control is trying to stop and what the pro-gun community inadvertently fights to keep.
This is how it was for the first one hundred years of American existence. “Purposive open carry.” Only lawless shit holes had what conservatives want today, habitual open carry. If it was a place with law, open carry without an obvious purpose was a breach of peace.
I mean, a law doesn’t have to stop every criminal to be useful, if gun control causes any significant reduction in shooting deaths, it will have saved lives, even if some shootings still occur.
Gun control arguments almost never include topics like this. It would be great if they did but you are kidding yourself if you think gun control proponents push for stuff like this on the regular.
“Hey America, I know you guys are having a domestic terrorism issue: so why don’t we make the people that contribute to society in a positive way less able to defend themselves?”
It’s like you guys willfully ignore that there are literal fascists in this country that will not give up their guns.
On a very minor technicality, since society is a group of people, every person in that group contributes to society. Some of them contribute negatively to society but it is still technically a contribution.
All of that aside, given the recent state of human society, I feel like making property owners into felons for owning property that they legally purchased would only incentivize them to commit more felonious acts.
making property owners into felons for owning property that they legally purchased
I have a .22 “rifle”. Same gun as pictured, but shorter barrel with a stupid “handicap” stock to make it legal. After 14+ million of us bought one, the ATF said, “Nope. You’re a felon.” Aight. Mine stays in the safe at my private camp.
And what did we gain here? We took a .22LR, that constantly jams, and made me a felon for owning a thing I bought legally.
would only incentivize them to commit more felonious acts
Well, I don’t know about that, but I certainly have less respect for gun laws now.
And for you “high-capacity” mag banners; All of my guns, including this one, actually work far better with smaller mags. So… thanks for legislating that my gun makes killing more efficient?
But you’re not going with the heckin narrativerino!!! Nvm Switzerland actively encourages gun ownership, or Czechia has the same constitutional right to bear arms we do (to fight off invaders like the soviets and nazis due to historical events, hm sounds familiar) or Norway still allowing gun ownership after taking tests and showing competency!!!
The heckin narrativerino!!! All social democrat nations have banned guns!!! The UK is a nation we should be mimicking!!!
Fuck these losers, make citizens lives better. Remember they can’t take your rights if they have to take your life first.
This topic just sincerely pisses me off when people with the understanding of guns is equal to that of a toddler begin speaking. If you want to make something your enemy, at LEAST understand it.
You posted the equivalent of winning a shower argument with some machismo one man army daydreaming bullshit. The same exact reasoning far right morons use, what discussion is there to be had?
I’m 52. Guess what we had and didn’t have when I was a kid.
Plenty of guns, and even laxer laws (excepting conceal carry!).
No mass shootings.
To be fair, I should include the mental health thing. I remember watching MTv as a teen in the late 80’s and they made a big thing of homelessness. I figured it had always been an issue but people ignored it and, as a kid, I was just then finding out.
Yeah, turns out we shut down our mental health centers. Probably a correlation there.
Let's not forget crushing the middle and lower classes, taking away things for them to live for. That doesn't cause you to hear voices but it certainly can't help.
Did you look at that link?! Scrolling through this century, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll…
And let’s define “mass shooting”. We have to at least agree that the definition is all over the place, and wildly different. And not, the wildly liberal source Mother Jones is on the far left. :) 6 or 818?
And I’m not hammering a technicality. What we think when we think “mass shooting” is clearly on the left of the chart.
Anyhow, shootings are clearly worse, despite more guns laws. (Excepting conceal carry laws! The gun people won’t admit it, but those laws have exploded!)
Add comment