General

It's hypocritical for people who have the power to make a meaningful change to offer only thoughts and prayers in lieu of action.

Both parties are certainly guilty of this, but on the gun front, it's strictly the right.

For those who say "gun control doesn't work": look at the example set in Australia. This is probably the closest analogy to the US.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-aust...

In 1996, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement after a mass shooting in Tasmania in April of that year. In that incident, a 28-year-old man, armed with a semi-automatic rifle, shot and killed 35 people, and injured 18 others, in what was known as the Port Arthur Massacre.

Since 1996, the number and rate of homicides — defined as murder and manslaughter — has fallen.

..., a 2006 analysis by scholars at the University of Sydney concluded that gun fatalities decreased more quickly after the gun law passed. “Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides,” the authors of that study wrote.

“While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.”

“Whether or not one wants to attribute the effects as being due to the law, everyone should be pleased with what happened in Australia after the NFA — the elimination of firearm massacres (at least up to the present) and an immediate, and continuing, reduction in firearm suicide and firearm homicide,” the authors write.

The US passed an assault weapon ban in 1994. The GOP let it expire in 2004. It isn't just the NRA lobbying congress. Guns and ammo are big business in the US.

https://theconversation.com/did-the-assault-weapon...

In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down

The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004.

Many gun rights activists would have everyone believe that the Second Amendment grants the unassailable right to unrestricted gun ownership. Most will state that the Second Amendment reads only "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!" I've spoken with some of them who don't even know that the Second Amendment actually begins with the phrase "well regulated militia".

The argument about gun control not working seems predicated on the idea that legislation wouldn't stop all mass killing events immediately.

Maybe this isn't the greatest analogy but I grew up in an age where it seemed like almost every adult smoked cigarettes. Every public building, especially restaurants, had a visible haze in the air from all the smoke. I hated group meetings at work because it was difficult for me to breath comfortably. When it was finally acknowledged that smoking was causing cancer and killing lots of people, the government took action. Smokers reacted almost violently to bans on smoking in public places. There were actual protests with people carrying signs saying "I smoke and I vote".

Here we are 50 years later. Everyone has accepted smoking limits. If the US would get as serious about preventing gun deaths, the gun culture would change - albeit slowly.

I get that there are times and places where people need a gun for protection or simply want one for recreational purposes. Almost everyone in the US needs a car. To be allowed to drive in the US, you need to prove proficiency, get a license, and have proof of insurance. There is no valid reason that similar requirements can't be placed on gun ownership.

As George Carlin once observed, any "right" that is granted by a government is simply a "privilege".

Nice @Tony

We have an even more recent example in New Zealand. In 2019, two shootings really shook the country, then they passed a ban on semi. No mass shootings since.

It's really that simple.

I'm optimistic that a good majority of the stupid will die out over the next several generations in conjunction to young blood in power. For now, I'll continue to live in my bubble as I continue to dislike the general population more and more.

Tony wrote:

If you want to see something truly mindboggling... look up the protests against seatbelts.

Edit: Quoted the wrong paragraph, sorry.

MrBean wrote:

Here, here!

In Florida you had the 2 dad's in vehicles in a rolling shoot out on I-95 where they shot each other's daughters.

Miami a guy pulled and shot multiple times through his windshield during rush hour traffic. Charges were dropped.

Tampa a guy mag dumped on a busy highway and wasn't charged cause another driver made a gesture so he "feared for his life"..

Outside Orlando a guy killed another guy in a movie theater cause he was on his phone during the previews( he was acquitted because the guy threw popcorn at him and he shot the guy cause he feared for his life)...

They have made it totally acceptable to use a gun to settle minor inconveniences at this point..

They won't do anything about gun control because they are using the collateral damage as the reason to turn this into a Police State. Nobody blinks an eye when they say that they are using drones to monitor people in New York but when they start doing it in rural areas it's wrong lol.

Foxhack wrote:

|Dude, I lived through those protests as well. The first automobiles I rode in didn't even have them. Even the first car I owned, a 1954 Dodge, did not have them. I live just across the river from Louisville, KY, and I watched on the local evening news as they showed buildings burned in protest when busing was introduced to end school segregation in Louisville.

In the cases of both smoking and seat belt use, the US needed a generation or two with serious enforcement of the new rules to effect the change in mindset. However, today, the internet and cable TV may make effecting such a change more difficult. These provide an easily accessible platform for those with an opposite point of view. The internet makes it easy for people to find others with the same ideology and organize resistance. There are already sheriff and police departments who state they won't enforce any gun regulations. Before the NRA, gun owners could primarily only vote locally and complain vocally to other local voters. Thanks to Citizens United (assed by the GOP) the NRA can use the dues they collect to directly lobby Senators and Representatives. 50 years ago, if there were Public Service Announcements giving the facts about mass shootings and gun related deaths as a lead up to the first efforts for weapons restrictions, there would not have been highly organized sources providing an alternate viewpoint and misinformation.

As long as the GOP is afraid of losing the votes of the large number of Second Amendment fanatics, they aren't going to address any form of gun regulation. Ironically, in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and the GOP supported gun restrictions because Black Panthers were marching through the streets brandishing machine guns.

benstylus wrote:

No, we aren't getting exactly what we asked for. We are getting exactly what the gerrymandered system and the Electoral College gave us. We're not getting what we asked for and that's a huge part of the problem.

Tony wrote:

And they also intelligent response you will get to everything that you wrote is:

ThOsE aReN'T cOnStItUtIoNaL rIgHtS tHaT mUsT nOt Be InFrInGeD uPoN.

Gun people and anti-gun people, get yourself a gun and carry it to protect yourself and family from the nuts that go off on mass shootings AND the terrorists coming in illegally. Restructuring of gun laws can come later but protect yourselves and family until then. Avoiding buying a gun because you think it’s wrong will not save you when you need one.

^ hate to agree, but true. I never wanted a gun, but it's time.

I honestly don't even know what to look for sans probably a general pistol and/or shotgun. How much money we talking here?

They have black friday sales? Ha, kidding but not.

back4more wrote:

Aren't there statistics that show that you're much more likely to be shot/injured by having a gun versus NOT having one? I've seen that stated several times in the past. People always go "the answer is, more good people need guns", but then the science doesn't appear to show that as accurate.

A quick Google search seems to support this idea.


This is based on the belief that you'll be more able to protect yourself and that's it. The reality is that having a gun in many cases makes you more likely to be injured, not saved, in many cases.

So, it is not as simple as just going "Well, things seem to be getting bad, I better go buy a gun." You may be making things worse for yourself, oddly enough.

John wrote:


https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-ho...

"A new study from my research team, recently published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, shows no such benefits. We found the opposite: people living in homes with guns face substantially higher risks of being fatally assaulted."

Studies like this change very few minds. Everyone believes they will be the exception to the pattern.

Yes, there are many occurrences of guns preventing home invasions, but there is a much greater number of times a gun is used on a family member or friend. Many of these are kids shooting kids.

In addition, successful suicides are much greater in areas of the country with high gun ownership rates.

Many years ago, one of the Friday evening shows (Dateline or 20/20) did a special on guns.

They went into the homes of gun owners. Each of the owners said the gun was in a place the kids couldn't find it or get to it. But when they asked the kids, the kids led them to the gun.

In one segment, they held a gun safety class for teens instructing them that if they ever found a gun they should leave it alone and tell an adult. They then had them hired to help a family move their furniture onto a truck. There was a pistol in one of the dressers. The kids found the gun and not only picked it up but passed it around and pointed it at each other. One even looked down the barrel to see if it was loaded.

In another segment, they took guys who had concealed carry training and permits and placed them in a college classroom. They were told in advance that at some time during the lecture a gunman would burst through the door. Not a single one of them was effective at stopping the gunman from shooting the teacher and several students. Most of them were among those "killed".

back4more wrote:


We're far more at risk from the domestic terrorists that are already here. The ones that have been here their entire lives.

Tony wrote:

Now that is truly the American way. We are all the exception to the rule!

https://youtu.be/QereR0CViMY

John wrote:

I'm not concerned with statistics, I'm concerned with my family's safety. Statistics can be spun in various ways to support various ideals. My father and grandfather taught me in the 80's how to properly handle a gun safely and how to shoot guns, and the US Army further trained me in the early 90's. I have no history of mental illness and my family/friends have never intervened in my life because they were concerned for my wellness. If I'm in an active shooter situation I'd rather have a gun and a chance then no chance. Most concealed carry people use hollow point rounds that will cause extra damage to the enemy, and also not go through the enemy and on to an innocent bystander.

The answer to "bad guys with guns" is more "good guys with guns"...

Except in reality, nearly 400 "good guys" waited outside of the classroom where a 18 year old was holding a AR15 for more than an hour before confronting him.

Miranda wrote:

There are many, many domestic risks, mentally ill with firearms, far right nut groups, but probably more criminals that are looking to shoot, kill, and/or rob people. Lots of terrorists are crossing the borders illegally every day as well. What I am saying is until things can be corrected nationally be sure to protect yourselves.

back4more wrote:

Until you become one.

back4more wrote:

Ok, sorry, but this is a horrible response. This is basically "I don't care what science says, I'm just going to believe what I want anyhow."

Those statistics are ABOUT your family's safety. You can't say that you aren't concerned with the stats, but only with your family's safety. That's what the stats are about -- your family's safety!


This is true. They CAN be. It doesn't change that they often are not spun and reflect reality.


Again, that is fine for you. As mentioned above, we all believe that we are the exception to the rule.

Reality is that more guns often cause more issues. Again, your case is very specific. The reality is that things like this happen VERY often:

1. Someone in the house with a gun kills someone else in the house that they know. One study mentioned above found that women were something like SEVEN TIMES more likely to be killed by their spouse in a home with a gun in it.
2. The gun owner accidentally shoots themselves or someone else while cleaning, loading, practicing with the gun.
3. Someone purposefully shoots themselves with the gun. Again, studies support this. Death by suicide goes up quite a bit with access to a weapon.
4. A child find access to the gun and shoots themselves or someone else.
5. And, maybe most importantly, also backed by science and studies, the reality is that even people with a weapon tend to NOT be successful at stopping someone else with one -- and, at times, make themselves MORE of a target.

Again, you might think that you are the exception. You might even be one. But the reality is that everyone running out to get a gun to "protect" themselves are most likely making harm more likely, not less.

John wrote:

Fine, if you or yours get in a situation then just politely ask the shooter to pause while you review the stats so you can then enlighten the shooter on what the stats call for.

Guns will not be removed from law abiding citizens, no matter how much whining, crying and stat citing happens. Spend time and money on education instead of calling for gun removal.

back4more wrote:

You are being overly facetious. You review stats and science BEFORE you make a decision ahead of time. That's what we're talking about here. Again, the reality is that, when actually IN one of those situations, these two things are most likely to happen to someone carrying their own gun:

1. They do nothing to help against the shooter, but manage to not get themselves harmed.
2. They do nothing to help against the shooter, and manage to get themselves harmed because of their own weapon.

Being the hero that stops the shooter is quite a ways down the list.


I didn't call for anything other than not telling people to run out and buy a gun because they think it will help.

You're the one calling for stuff. Telling people to go get them. Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about gun removal here.

I don't think anyone even mentioned anything about removing guns from current owners.

But I do think it's reflective of the pro gun base, any remotely sensible talk about regulation translate to "they're coming for your guns"

Clearly we cannot agree so I remind you that I choose self defense by firearm, and I will leave you all with a simple quote from Jesus Christ ...... Peace be with you ... John 20:19

There's no reason why we can't educate the public about guns and have sensible gun regulation at the same time. Just like we can do gun regulation and deal with mental health crisis at the same time.

But notice the problem is still easy access to guns. That's still the common denominator. No amount of gaslighting can change this fact.

I feel like a broken record.

I don't have a problem with you choosing what you want for self defense. I have a problem with you telling others to do it too without recognizing that that might actually do more harm than good.

Also, I happen to be a Christian myself, but I also find it odd when someone starts quoting scriptures during a discussion. Especially one calling for "peace" during a discussion about the opposite of that...

back4more wrote:

Matthew 26:52
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place, for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

There is no verse 52 and a half where He says:
You should have brought your gun instead.

My comment was peace to everyone but especially peace to those that think a gun is useless, you know, since they wont have protection when the police can't get there to save them.

Have fun boys, and don't forget to Trump bashing event on FB at noon, and then the Jan 6th tin foil hat meeting on reddit at 3.

back4more wrote:

The irony of labeling the anti Trump crowd as the tin foil hat wearers is pretty hilarious.

Are people still apologizing for Trump? I would have thought it's clear he's a scam artist criminal by now.

Anyway, let's not go there.

back4more wrote:


And it's responses like this that make it hard to even have the conversation about gun control.

The whole "let them try to take my guns" is tough guy speak for "I am 100% willing to murder anyone who comes to take my guns if they are ever deemed illegal at some point in the future."

This tells me you're already suffering from mental instability.

Reading that time magazine article though... those are sobering statistics

People living with handgun owners died by homicide at twice the rate of their neighbors in gun-free homes. That difference was driven largely by homicides at home, which were three times more common among people living with handgun owners.

Study findings in one other area were noteworthy: homicides perpetrated by strangers. Homicides of this kind were relatively uncommon in our study population—much less common than deaths perpetrated by the victim’s partner, family members, or friends. But when they happened, people living with gun owners did not experience them less often than people in gun-free homes.

It's interesting that the argument tends to be law-abiding gun owners vs criminals vs the government.

Taking guns away from law abiding owners and having laws in place to make it difficult/challenging to get a legal gun only hurts the law abiding people since criminals are, well, criminals. Meanwhile, the government doesn't want you to have guns so they can send the army in to put you into little 15 minute cities and control everything you do.

Those are the arguments I usually hear.

What always gets missed is that the majority of North American (yeah, Canada, too) mass shootings are not done by hunters, hobbyists, or criminals. They're done by mentally and emotionally unstable people who probably haven't broken any serious laws or done anything useful to fit into either group.

How do you propose to prevent these people from getting their mitts on guns? If they're weird enough, they don't even have to buy one. People are literally 3D printing out guns that function well-enough and long enough. How do you know if someone is unstable? Some are not so obvious.

Sure, it's a bit more effort to get a gun in Canada. I suspect we have just as many unstable people here as in the US per capita. There are certainly less shootings here than there, but we do have them.

Y2k wrote:


Uh oh those are triggers words. You can’t mention stuff like that. Normalcy bias and all.

I've seen enough westerns to know that dragging us back to the wild west isn't a good idea.

Sid_Ceaser wrote:

I've seen enough videos of Florida to see it isn't a good idea.

(Edit: This is a reference to an earlier post in this thread about the state. Plz don't yell at me)

Mass shootings are largely not done by hunters, hobbyists or criminals because it can be easily done by anyone who's 18 years old.

I think a 2 week process in obtaining a gun will be a good start. People shouldn't be able to walk into gun shop/Walmart/flea market get a gun on their 18th birthday and shoot up a place on the same day. A universal database with yellow and red flags for people who have been mentally unstable(like the Maine shooter), information needs to be shared and in an accessible database or else it's useless.

There are ways, people just gotta come to the table and not dismiss everything as a violation of 2nd amendment.

Lunar wrote:

We already have a system in place like you describe above, if I’m not mistaken. At least for retail. California has a 10 day waiting period for fire arms and for ammunition. I don’t think you can have any unregulated sales in CA either like person to person. Those types of sales/transfers have to happen at a licensed firearms dealer.