General

"565th mass shooting in the US this year."

Absolutely fudging insane.

'MURICA!

On the plus side that's down so far. It was about 692 in 2021 and 648 for 2022.

Can't count your chickens yet, there are still two more months in the year 😔

Maybe it sounds a little callous but by and large these mass shootings don't affect me anymore.

We've had so many, and the people in power continue to wring their hands and send their "thoughts and prayers" to the victims, but no one actually makes substantive changes because they are more afraid of losing their seat than doing the right thing. Whether it's gun control or mental health care, it's easier to just spout platitudes in the moment and then ignore the problem and hope it goes away. Or that some other story will come along to distract us. And it works because we keep electing these people.

We have 600+ mass shootings every year because we deserve 600+ mass shootings every year for electing enablers.

No one deserves 600+ mass shootings every year. We deserve better.

Not sure who's we but I don't vote for gun nuts.

f you plant corn, you aren't going to grow plums.

America is reaping the seeds that have been sown over the past decades. Deserved? Maybe, maybe not - that's not a point i'm super attached to. But we are getting exactly what we asked for... which may be even worse.

Nothing will change, but thoughts and prayers will save the day!

This really has me considering getting my concealed carry license. I realize this is me basically saying "i'll solve gun violence with a gun" but I'm at a loss as to what else I can do to protect myself and the people I care about. The "random" nature of these events is horrifying.

Only way to deal with the gun epidemic is through legislation. I mean, yes you could arm yourself in case of emergency but that won't do any good long term.

Lunar wrote:

Agree completely

Legislation won't work because it would need to be on a constitutional level. We can barely get one party to fully agree on anything, much less a 2/3 majority in congress followed by 38 individual state legislatures.

The only way anything will actually change is if the culture changes. If owning a gun is seen as a sign of weakness, mental deficiency, and a small penis instead of being seen as a symbol of liberty, power, and a small penis.

It's been done before.

And how do you implement a 'cultural change'?

Lunar wrote:

The last meaningful constitutional change was in the early 1970s, giving 18 year olds the right to vote. And that was hard fought.

The 27th amendment in 1992 (still over 30 years ago) was about when laws involving pay changes to congress take effect. Which I'm pretty sure most people don't care that much about.


It's a long term process. Unfortunaly it mostly involves waiing for old people to die since they rarely change their minds.

I meant the assault rifle ban in the Clinton era.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weap...


Sadly, this sounds just as useful as thoughts and prayers.

Which expired almost 20 years ago and has never been renewed. It also never made it to the Supreme Court so we don't know if it would have survived anyway. (Almost certainly not with the current court)

Those were also the pre-social media days, when reaching across the aisle and consensus building was considered a strength, rather than the hyperpartisanship we have now.

There is definitely appetite on the left for a renewal. In the last congress, when Dems had the trifecta, 2 senators kept them back from pausing the filibuster, which would have pressed through many of the liberal agendas.

Anyway, all is to say, if the chaos that's going on in the House right now is any indication, Republicans will almost certainly lose their narrow majority in the House(which was gerrymandered to begin with), and if the Dems can hang on to their hairline majority in the senate(a taller order), and obviously keep the White House(lest we want Orange again), we might see some changes. Better than thoughts and prayers I suppose.

bumsplikity wrote:

Same boat. Never owned, nor wanted to own, but feels like it's gonna be a neccessary evil at some point. The inability to protect my family because of the insanity that may be at my doorstep some day is beyond scary.

@MrBean I encourage you to educate and arm yourself for the protection of your family. Crime does happen and criminals almost certainly will be armed because it's insanely easy to get guns in this country. Here in the south, you can go to a flea market and buy a gun. That's it. That's the entire process. No checks, no waiting period, just walk in with cash and walk out with a shotgun.

I absolutely support gun reform on a legislative level, but I also recognize that gun violence is a very real problem today and arming myself seems like a step I can take in the short term.

If anyone decides to purchase a firearm, do so responsibly. Educate yourself, take your weapon to a range and practice with it, devise a safe way to store away from children, etc etc etc. Owning a gun is a huge responsibility so do not take it lightly.

bumsplikity wrote:


When you are averaging over 1 mass shooting a day is it really that random? odds are there will be another one tomorrow, the next day and well everyday until the calendar rolls over and we start anew. With all the tensions in the middle east December looks like it could be bad.

bumsplikity wrote:

If what you are saying is true about flea markets then that is absolutely abhorrent and disgusting. I am so sick of this country's obsessions with guns and this is coming from someone who grew up around them in a safe and respectable way.

We have been blessed with such a potentially beautiful existence and planet and yet we continuously prove we aren't worthy of it and just generally suck lol

@Finn that is precisely why I put random in quotes. They are random in the sense that they can happen at any time and place but unfortunately pretty commonplace in the US.

@Shane12m it is 100% true, I go to flea markets every single weekend. Some markets ban the sale of firearms as a general rule, but most of them have no such rules in place. It is worth noting that only long guns can be sold, handgun sales are illegal in this manner.

That being said, handgun sales still happen, they are just not openly displayed like the long guns. I could buy a handgun this weekend at the flea market since I'm a super regular and know the right people.

That's sadly true, sorry if the comment may have implied something else.

In Canada we have had 4 mass shootings this year. June/July then Sept and one just 3 days ago. All in Ontario. Now we have pretty tight gun control up here. I do believe it works, but I am not blind and know that it will not stop them all. Honestly I think it's a pretty cowardly tactic that the pro gun people use when there is a shooting you know the "where were your gun laws when this happened" type comments. Its much harder almost impossible to find out how many they have stopped.

I am not anti gun. I live in a pretty damn pro gun part of the country and even I have thought about getting a hand gun. Currently though I am unable to as there is a Freeze on all handgun sales, imports and transfers. Though I would imagine that changes when we get a change of government in the next year or so.

Any sort of rational gun legislation is filed under violation of 2nd amendment rights. No one is asking for banning of all arms sales, just that we put checks in place so dangerous people can't easily get their hands on weapons.

There's always the argument "if criminals want to get a gun, they'll get it by illegal means". Well yea, but let's not give them the leisure of legal means to kill people.

Lunar wrote:

Yes. Apparently there was no "Red Flag" law and this guy had shown that he probably should not have been allowed to be around guns since he threatened to shoot up another place before he did this.

I don’t want to rile anyone up but personally I see the mental health issue the bigger fish. I was a cop in the military and current gun owner. I also have my ccp and have taught both my kids fire arm safety and have taken them to the range for practical application of fire arm safety. I’m also a member of our local shooters association. I also live in a state that allows unrestricted person to person sales of all types of fire arms but does require a back ground check for retail sales.

The article in the op clearly states the shooter had mental issues. Not to make light but the old adage is guns don’t kill people. People kill people. We’d rather send money over seas then invest in those that need help at home. I don’t know what the answer is, slippery slope I suppose.

It's a multi-tiered problem. Mental health is part of it, but the country's obsession with guns is another part of it - potentially also partly linked to mental illness

I don't have an issue with legal recreational gun use. But when your Christmas card photo is your family and about 40 guns that tells me you're beyond recreation. At that point, it's idol worship and guns are your god.

Mental health, sure. Mental health is a global problem though, which means it's not isolated in the US. But the gun problem is uniquely US.

Lunar wrote:

I couldn't help myself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bbObqQlOM4

loztdogs wrote:

Did we help those at home before the Ukraine war started? And we stopped since the war started?

This talking point doesn't make sense if you think about it. It's not as if aid to US citizens stopped since Ukraine was invaded, it was never there to begin with.

But let's sunset medicare and SS, why not.

Lunar wrote:

I agree with you. It was just a general thought. It could apply to Vets, homeless, mental health, drug addiction etc… we neglect our own.

I think we could do more for all those groups. Aid to Ukraine, and now Israel, it's more complicated. I think the majority of the population is for aid. But a noticeable minority is against.

We can't even handle basic medical care in the US.

As an example, of the top ten most expensive countries for a one month supply of insulin, you probably wouldn't be surprised to know that the US is number one.

But you might be surprised to find out that the cost in the US is higher than the combined total cost for countries 2 through 8.

Average cost of a one month supply of insulin (top ten most expensive countries):

United States — $98.70

Chile — $21.48
Mexico — $16.48
Japan — $14.40
Switzerland — $12.46
Canada — $12.00
Germany — $11.00
Korea — $10.30
(Sum total of # 2 Chile through #8 Korea = $98.12)

Luxembourg — $10.15
Italy — $10.03

Aren't we glad one of the major parties of our political system fought for and won for us, the price cap of $35 a month on insulin then?

Its a start but by no means cause for celebration.

$35 ia still far and away #1 in the world and more than two and half times the average of #2-#10.

And technically I believe the $35 cost cap only applies legally to Medicare, although the big manufacturers have agreed to do it for other insurance as well.

The max is $35, those you showed are average. Aren't you a glass half empty kind of guy...

Aid is needed.

We can do both... Issue is the programs need to be reviewed and overhauled and then you NEED to make sure once people are done programs that follow up support is there when needed. Tossing money will not aways fix things... I think programs around mental health are more after thoughts then actual programs. Tossing more money at the issue is funding a broken system. Come up with a new plan to fix the system and look at getting the appropriate funding. There is enough government waste that could be stopped to fund programs that we actually need, aid should not be the thing anyone puts on the chopping block.

My problem with the mental health issue is that, it's clearly being scapegoated as the real problem. Like, no the guns are still the problem. Mental Health with no guns, is just a crazy guy.

Lunar wrote:

After having my medication I've been using for years deemed no longer covered by my insurance this year and having to choose between the switch to a less effective medication or paying a much higher amount; and after an unrelated trip to the ER that wiped out a sizeable chunk of my savings even after the $300 copay (WHY IS A COPAY $300?), it would be reasonable to say that I am not the biggest cheerleader for the health care system in the USA. And I have "good" insurance.

I feel like even with insurance, most US households are one serious medical incident away from bankruptcy. Or at least begging family and friends for support with a gofundme.

Lunar wrote:

What would you propose? No guns? Limited guns? Crazy guy could steal a bus and drive through story time theater. Or strategically place pipe bombs along a marathon route. No guns involved in either scenario. Clearly if the individual (for one reason or another ) is ok with taking lives, they can find a means.

Not that your comment was directed at me but in my opinion, again getting to the root of mental illness is the bigger fish. Not scapegoating. I simply don’t see guns as the root cause.

Sitrep (Situation report) as of today, apparently the suspect had heard people 'say things about him'...

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/police...

Safe to say he had some sort of mental issue. And Maine doesn't require a weapon license nor does it prohibit sale of extended magazines...

My friends brother ended their mom's life over the summer. Why? Because the VA is in very bad shape. You can blame gun control all you want, but the fact of the matter is, people are not getting the treatment they need after traumatic incidents.

My friends brother had PTSD and other stuff. And he spiraled out of control. He did it because he was hallucinating. This incident is eerily familiar in terms of somebody not getting help from our country. I feel horrible for my friend and I'm trying to brighten his days just a little bit.

benstylus wrote:
...

I agree with all of that -- but I still think Lunar is right that we can celebrate a reduction in insulin price from an average of almost $100/month to a cap of $35/month.

I think that is all he was saying. Not that it "solves" everything -- again, what you said is still true. But it is likely still a think to be celebrated in this country.

loztdogs wrote:

Yea, people can do alot with planes, buses, trucks etc. But the easiest thing to do massive amount of damage in a short amount of time, is an AR-15 type weapon. With little to no safeguards in place, it has been pretty easy I'd say. I don't claim to have all th answers but 1 thing is certain, ease of obtaining a gun is directly linked to ease of mass murders in this country. I want a national background check and red flag laws. I want a ban on semi auto guns. I want a week delay in obtaining weapons legally. None of these violate 2nd amendment in my opinion but it has enough deterrence for any impulsive urge to shoot up a place. Even one of these could save hundreds of lifes, again, the goal isn't to completely eradicate mass murders, it's deterrence and hopefully prevention.

The idea of "let's look at everything else first, then, maybe we can check if guns are the issue". What is the one thing all of these ~600+ mass murders this year have in common?

Lunar wrote:

Both mental health and guns. I'm not even interested in firearms myself. But the truth is, it starts with the stability of the person who is behind the weapon.

You often hear people say they never expected the person to do what they did in these situations. After what happened to my friend, I do believe that in a good amount of cases. My friends brother was always laughing and having a good time. It wasn't the real him behind the gun, it was his mental state.

My friend is standing with his brother too. And doesn't want him to rot in prison. And I fully support him because the VA failed him.

https://www.wmtw.com/article/how-president-biden-m...

Congressman who represents Lewiston is now calling for ban on assault weapons. I mean, that's a good but maybe shouldn't have waited until your district is on national news.

Lunar wrote:

You’re not wrong. I agree we definitely need to keep guns out of the hands of those that intend to do harm. I also agree that those that intend to do harm should not have easy access to firearms. My point is. My hope would be if we were to really treat mental illness effectively (like actually put effort in) we could reduce the total number of incidents. Resulting in far less planes, buses, trucks and gun related mass murders. I just don’t know what the balance is between folks like me and mentally Ill people that want to kill me. It certainly isn’t the demonizing of guns. It would just be something different. (Insert weapon of choice here)

Let's put into perspective. A purported mentally ill guy who is depressed and distressed, probably will not have the mental capacity to plan out an elaborate attack involving many moving parts. If they can walk into a flea market and buy an AR15 in the morning, and they can go shoot up a crowded place after lunch and a piss. That's what happens. And there's plenty of precedent to this exact scenario.

Anyway, mental illness, yes, it's an issue by itself. Combined with ease of obtaining a weapon of war, that's a formula for 600 mass shootings a year.

Gun control will never work. Let's hypothetically say we become a communist country by removing the 2nd amendment (good luck with that btw,) and force everyone to turn in their weapons. There will be a black market, much like buying drugs off the streets. What do you think would happen in that scenario? One mass shooting has the potential to outnumber all the others combined.

Solution? Obviously everyone needs to be armed openly and without a permit, like it used to be. You obviously cannot rely on cops to protect you all the time. Their response times are slow, and the number of crooked cops are going up, because all the good ones are quitting because of the anti-police movements and cries for defunding the police. You would be better off relying on citizens who aren't mentally ill for help.

As for me, I will never get rid of my guns and lose my rights over what someone else does, and if you're butthurt about it, I have two words for ya.

Fudge you.

At the end of the day… criminals are gonna criminal.

loztdogs wrote:

I don't agree with this.

It's like saying addicts are gonna addict, so why not let them have easy access to their drug/alcohol of choice.

bluemetal04 wrote:

Easy there fella. No one is coming for your guns. Though, in the event that your hypothetical plays out, good luck holding on to them.

Lunar wrote:

It was tongue in cheek. But we do, don’t we… methadone?

But kind of ironic no? For the alcoholic or drug addicted. Do we treat the disease at the root or do we just remove access to these substances for everyone? I realize it’s not the same thing but the principles are similar.

We do both. Not completely removing access, but regulated. Honestly, similar solution can be had. Anything dangerous is regulated. Not sure why guns would be an exception. Regulation of guns + mental illness treatment. Come on, we can vote on that?

bluemetal04 wrote:

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

I may just be cynical but I don’t see a realistic scenario where we institute any kind of gun reform. If consistent annual 600+ mass shootings some of which exclusively targeted dozens of defenseless schoolchildren don’t motivate change then nothing will. Because fundamentally the left thinks guns are the cause and the right thinks guns are our only defense against them and both sides hold fast to their views. With greater political polarization than ever there will be no compromise on gun legislation.

Pro-gun people frequently blame mental health which likely plays a part at least in some shootings but there has been little health care reform with that in mind. With every shooting mental health is discussed but zero is ever done.

As a result, mass shootings are here to stay. They’re not going anywhere. That’s the grim reality.

Staraang wrote:

Views are great except when there is empirical evidence. The US far outstrips any other high income country where gun ownership is more heavily regulated.

From a 2018 study, we have 4.12 gun related deaths per 100,000 people.

The next closest is Chile with 1.82, then Canada with 0.5. Perhaps people are too spread out in Canada so that's why there aren't more. Let's look at more densely populated countries.

Sweden? 0.25.
Germany? 0.08.
UK? 0.04
Japan? 0.02

https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-bl...

Someone want to tell me why we have 100 times more gun deaths per capita than the UK?

People in all these countries have mental health problems just like people on the US. So why don't we read about folks getting mass murdered there on the regular?

It's the culture. As a country we are obsessed with guns and whatever image we believe guns convey. Masculinity, power, security, looking super cool. There are estimated to be 20% more civilian-owned guns in the USA than there are civilians.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_o...

I know people who fondle and caress their guns (though they wouldn't call it that if you asked them). It's like a masturbatory experience for them. The gun defines them. It is their fantasy and ideal life. They may not be rich, or have the best job, but by gum they own a firearm so they're doing something right.

You want to talk mental health, there's a place to start.

Staraang wrote:

It's not for lack of trying. Remember when Sandy Hook was gonna be a reckoning? Then we had multiple Sandy Hooks since.
Elections have consequences. So vote for people who campaign on gun reform, it's not guaranteed they will, but at least don't vote for the gun nuts.


This is precisely why I think mental health is just being paraded as the scapegoat. While it's an issue on its own, mental health doesn't mass murder.


Sad but true. Though there's hope, vote, like your life depends on it.

Lunar wrote:


The article in the op clearly eludes to mental health mass murdered.

If mental health is discussed but zero is ever done… so why start now, amiright?

The firearms in my safe have never mass murdered. Not one.

loztdogs wrote:

And how many mentally ill people you know have mass murdered? Not one I assume.

Guns are the problem. Period. Full Stop.

Mental health is a factor too, but again, it's not uniquely a US problem.

I suspect we will just be doing this back and forth, so let's not.

This talking point is actually covered in this segment aired yesterday.

Mental health mentioned starting 4:48

https://youtu.be/6mughfNBfx0?si=7gFB4o-E2RqYdlkF&t...

Lunar wrote:

I agree with the points in the video. My argument wasn't about gun control. Hopefully that been clear.

benstylus wrote:

I agree with you. It's very hard to change the culture. Mental health is a piece of it but not everything. And there's no political will to address the mental health aspect. After every shooting there's handwringing about deficient mental health care. But that's all - no action. I've witnessed that for decades and I just don't see that changing after another mass shooting which has more or less become routine at this point.



Lunar wrote:

I was alluding to Sandy Hook in my earlier post. If you can't get behind common-sense gun reform after an atrocity like Sandy Hook then I don't think there's hope for you.


You really think that will help? I'm being honest here, not sarcastic or condescending. Democrats held both houses and the presidency when Obama came into office but were unsuccessful in passing meaningful gun control legislation even after Sandy Hook. I do think there are Republicans who are interested in passing restrictions on guns but not if they want to hold on to office. NRA scorecards are too important to their election prospects.

loztdogs wrote:

Neither had the gun used in Maine until the shootings happened. So not sure of your point...

Although I guess I would be more concerned if you DID have a personal collection of guns that were previously used in mass shootings.

benstylus wrote:

My point has been and still is Metal Heath is root cause. The cycle will continue until the real problem is addressed. Imo An assault weapon ban is not going to stop mass murdering. I’m fine with regulation. Criminals should not have weapons of any kind. The mentally ill person is just going to find another means to cause harm.

Staraang wrote:

Eventually, there will be enough pressure to change. It's cruel but hopefully, with enough Sandy Hooks, people will reconsider, like this conservative Democrat congressman from Maine who is now for gun reform.

Filibuster needs to be waived for it to work. When was the last time we had 60 Democrat senators?

In the last bout, two senators held the line in opposition (Manchin and Sinema), Sinema is on her way out. But Dems Senate is likely to lose majority in 2024, but one can hope

There was a minor bipartisan gun law passed earlier this year, so it's not as bleak as we think.

loztdogs wrote:

How do you explain other countries having similar mental health issues but nowhere near as many mass shootings?

Lunar wrote:

I can’t. I don’t know the economics, culture, accountability, morales etc.. of these countries.

Again… I’m ok with gun control. And again, I’m advocating for mental health reform. Hell do them both in tandem. We just simply can’t keep saying yeah we have problem but what ya gonna do.

loztdogs wrote:

You mean like we do for climate change, college tuition, healthcare, etc.?

A shrug and a collective "meh" is what modern America does best.

But do you see the fail in logic when we compare to other similar countries, we stand alone in the 600 mass shootings a year? Given that we have similar background in economy, education, mental health etc?

And the only difference is ease of access to weapons.

Lunar wrote:

Many of those other countries have socialized health care, and they might have better access to mental health services, or at least less of a stigma surrounding them. Too many people here still think if you have mental health problems mean you are a failure as a human being for not being strong enough.

Luckily the people who are 2nd Amendment hawks are also for universal health care...

Right?

Just popping in to say that local news channels are saying the suspect in this particular case has been found dead.

https://fox23maine.com/news/local/body-murder-susp...

They'll hold a press conference in 20 minutes.

benstylus wrote:


Well it's not like the average Canadian can go days without seeing another Canadian 80% of our population is urban. Our gun laws are pretty stricked by US standards but we do own a decent amount of guns. I think we rank #6 in the world in gun ownership.

Friend lives .3 miles from the shooting. Walks by the bowling alley every day. Knows people killed. It’s fudging disgusting. The 2nd amendment isn’t worth this, sorry.

This isn’t stopping. It won’t. This country will destroy itself from the inside out, unfortunately.

We’re doomed.

bluemetal04 wrote:

Is that really what you believe communism is? If people democratically passed a law to change/edit/revise the 2nd amendment... You think THAT is what communism is?

image

But... The development of the industrial bourgeoisie! The worker's control of the means of production! The struggle of the urban proletariat!

https://youtu.be/JsvFwOLWyC8

To be clear, I'm not against people who really have no way to offer immediate assistance offering thoughts and prayers. Sometimes just knowing other people recognize your pain is a helpful coping tool.

But it irks me to no end when lawmakers do it and believe that satisfies their obligations instead of working towards making meaningful policy changes.

The second amendment was written during a time when the guns of the day were muskets and single shot pistols where it would take 20-30 seconds for someone to reload.

Guns have certainly evolved since then. The second amendment can, too.

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.

Surveys have shown that about 75% of Americans favor "common sense" gun control like the assault weapons ban, red flag laws, waiting periods, and background checks. However, enough of them still vote for the puppets of the NRA who oppose any and all measures proposed that no effective laws get passed.

California has the strictest gun laws in the nation, and the 8th lowest level of gun related violence.
And that's despite being a border state for all of the people claiming that "terrorists" are flooding across the border every day.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_...

yea, we need a national database for background checks. Too easy to cross state borders.

Y2k wrote:

The thing is, a person is only a criminal once they have a record. Right now, they can skip the part where they become a criminal by illegally obtaining a firearm, because it's so easy to do so legally. Even having a criminal record doesn't bar you from legally obtaining a firearm in parts of the US. This sounds dense, but I'd prefer criminals be forced to take criminal action to obtain their desired firearm. If "criminals gonna criminal", why make it easier? Why have any rules in place if bad people are just going to do it anyways?

Having lots of guns makes me feel ok about having a small penis.

back4more wrote:

That's a whole lot of hooey. You said lots of terrorists crossing the borders because you were told lots of terrorists were crossing the borders. You were told that by a pathological liar who is batcrap crazy and wants to manipulate gullible people who are entrenched in a cultist mindset. You have absolutely no proof of that. You just just bought the orange bag of bullcrap and chose to marinate in it.

The biggest domestic terrorist threat the United States faces, above and before foreign terrorists including Isis and its sympathizers, are white supremacist groups and far-right extremist groups. Homegrown.

Terrorists have always been able to get into the country just like everybody else; through legal ports of entry. That's how the majority of people and drugs come into this country. Look at 9/11. People weren't screaming "the terrorists are coming over the border!" Because nobody was dumb enough to say something so foolish and most people wouldn't bought that nonsense even then. They got in though, didn't they? Why? Because they have always been able to get in a border wall isn't going to stop that. If one makes the effort to look at all the domestic terrorist attacks that have occurred since 9/11 and are capable of being honest they will see who's responsible for the domestic terrorism in this country. It isn't make believe Boogeyman. The Caravans are coming! The Caravans are coming! The Caravans are coming! It's our own people who are the most dangerous and they just keep getting more and more dangerous. Just like for decades they've been screaming "they're going to take our guns! They're going to take our guns!" It works. It's a lie, but it works. Everybody ignores that not once has anyone ever tried to repeal the Second Amendment. Common Sense gun control? Absolutely. Taking away weapons that are great for mass shootings? Absolutely. Dangerous criminals and mentally ill people not having guns? Seems to be common sense, but it isn't. Look at the numbers after weapons used in mass shootings were banned. Then look at the numbers after psychos were permitted to have them or they were made available by stupid people who don't know how to take care of their guns. Look at the number of incidents. The number of mass shootings after crazies were permitted to have guns & ammo that are unnecessary and people who should happy permitted to have guns have increased exponentially. Everybody wants to say guns aren't the problem. People are the problem. Yeah. Let's go with that. Why give people who are a serious problem guns? That nonsense that people need to protect themselves is so silly. They may be able to do some serious damage to a small area, but they're Beyond stupid if they think they're going to be able to stave off the National Guard. They sure as hell aren't going to be able to stave off our military if the Insurrection Act is invoked.

Hilary Clinton is that you?

incubus421 wrote:

There are plenty of things we require tests and licenses for.

Guns get a pass because they are enshrined in thr constitution because in the 1790s they were pretty much a necessity for survival. Not to mention the revolutionary War was still quite fresh in people's minds. The conquest of nations was still very much a thing many countries wanted to do.

Nowadays, Not only do I need a license to drive a car (much more of a necessity today than a gun, IMO - especially the single shot muskets and flintlock guns of the 18th century), I am also required to maintain insurance on it, and regularly renew my license every few years. Lose my eyesight? No more car for me.

Certainly we could make requiring a mental health test, safety test, and possibly even insurance a thing for guns as well? As it stands now I could legally buy one even if I were completely blind.

I just don't understand the resistance. Is it really because you're afraid you can't revolt against the government?

Lunar wrote:

Who’s resisting? The thread has been mainly folks getting defensive if the conversation eludes to anything other than Yes, you’re right gun reform is the only option. Speaking for myself only. I already said I’m for gun control. I fully agree criminals and the mentally ill should not have or own firearms. Or even be able to access one if that’s not clear.

Out of curiosity those that are pro gun reform; what is/has been your relationship with firearms? Grew up around them, owned one etc..?

Literally all of GOP

loztdogs wrote:

Since you asked... Grew up around them, yes. My father was a cop for years. Was used to seeing his revolver every day. He also carried a 9mm when not on duty. I never had a "big gun" when I was younger -- shot a lot of BB guns and some .22 for fun now and then. Was never a hunter.

As an adult, I own a shotgun that I inherited. Have never fired it.

In short, grew up very much around them. Happen to own one. Haven't shot one in years.

loztdogs wrote:

To my knowledge, my parents did not own any (or if they did they kept quiet about it).

Had plenty of friends whose parents did. Some of those parents were responsible, some were not.

Friends often had BB guns or pellet guns which we would use for target practice. Proper safety procedures not always followed by my friends in those cases.

One of the neighbor kids accidentally got shot in the eye with a BB gun and lost all vision in that eye.

On a separate occasion I was shot at point blank in the side of the head with a BB gun from one of those friends who was playing with it and was sure it wasn't loaded.

In both these cases, glad it was just a bb gun.

Used actual pistols and rifles on occasion in Boy Scouts. Definitely followed proper safety procedures there.

I now live in KY where gun culture is absolutely huge. I would guess 80% of the people I know own firearms.

I am comfortable handling guns (rather, i shoulf say I am comfortably uncomfortable so that i am not complacent) but have zero faith in other people being as responsible. Kind of like driving. Except here you don't need a license, training, background check, etc. As long as you are of age and have money you can buy guns.

Never owned a gun. Been to a range a few times, that's about it.

loztdogs wrote:

I was maybe 10 first time I shot a firearm. I was into trap shooting when I was younger and went hunting a few times. My dad has probably 200 guns. I own 6 guns but have only 1 in my possession (rest are in my dads gun room). I know 5 people who have committed suicide. I know 3 people who have been murdered with a gun. I know at least 3 people that were shot non-fatally on accident. I don’t know anyone that has saved their life or the life of another with a gun. I bet those sort of numbers are really common.

Chad wrote:

This is interesting. Were the 5 people who committed suicide by shooting themselves?

For those that shared, thanks for sharing. Personally I have never had an unhealthy relationship with firearms. so it does guve me a different perspective. I grew up in a small farm town in N. CA before urban sprawl made it unrecognizable. My father hunted. Mainly bow but owned rifles. Infact I have his old rifle in my safe. He also carried a 9mm when we camped. I think the first firearm I ever shot was a 12guage at my uncles cattle ranch when I was like 12. That’s my first memory anyway. I was always brought up to respect firearms and was told repeatedly they are not toys. I don’t ever recall being in a situation where I saw anyone of any age mishandling a firearm. Even when we shot our BB guns if we were caught horse playing I’d get a whooping for sure.

Joined the military at 18 shipped off the following month of graduating H.S. Was deployed over seas a couple times. As a coo you always carried and you always practiced safe firearm handling, or you’d get a whooping.

I enjoy the hobby, I find the range to be relaxing. I even like field stripping and cleaning peaceful. But when they are not in use they are locked up. I do conceal carry when I go hiking and out with the fam. But I also follow all rules and regulations. Meaning, for example, I don’t carry to places that serve alcohol in premise whether I’m partaking or not… and other such scenarios.

A guy I worked with lived outside of town and hunted deer. He may have had other weapons besides his hunting rifle. One night he came home drunk, and knowing his wife was home alone decided to have a little fun and scare her into thinking someone was breaking in. She shot through the front door and hit him in the gut. He lived, but it easily could have gone the other way.

My mom was in a local restaurant when a guy came in to confront his girlfriend who was a waitress there. He shot her in front of everyone. Fortunately, he didn't shoot any other patrons that day, or I (and many others) could have lost their loved ones. The police arrived quickly, and the first officer lived only because his vest protected his vital areas.

My sister lived in the county. One day a strange car pulled into the driveway and a guy got out an tried to break through her front door. She immediately called 911 and shouted that she had called and that she had a gun (which she didn't). The sheriff arrived with a few minutes, but the guy had left. She bought a gun after that incident, but never had another incident where she might have needed it.

Many years ago a woman at church had to take out a restraining order against her ex-husband. She also bought a gun and learned how to use it properly. She didn't need it until last year. She fosters dogs for the local humane society and had brought home a pitbull mix. Everything was fine for several days, and then in the middle of the night the dog went crazy and attacked her. It tore her up pretty bad before she was able to get her gun and shoot it.

Just heard someone I hung out with occasionally in my after-school years (he hosted some LAN parties out at his place a few times, I made it at least once and he's been someone I've seen at a few parties since) was just stopped from carrying out his plans to, apparently, erase his rock climbing group. Drove several hours out of his way with three guns and many, many rounds, made diary posts that cued people in to him potentially hurting or not being okay. Recently was getting over a divorce, had some serious trauma growing up. I don't know if you can come back from that, but I hope he gets help after he serves his due time. Really depressing crap to be woken up to, "Hey, remember this guy?" "Yeah" "Someone showed me this story the other day" "Oh. "

That's really gotta shake up the group, honestly, these are sorta support groups in their own way, to know someone in the group didn't reach out for help but instead wanted to hurt everyone is some spooky crap. Glad they're okay if nothing else.

DarkFact wrote:

Not this guy right? https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/man-accused-of-pl...

This story hits close to home since it's in our state and it's a popular place for climbers. My wife and I climb too, but only indoors.

Lunar wrote:
Yeah that's what I meant, I do know a few other suicides that weren't self inflicted gun shots but wasn't counting them.

From today's NY Times:

---

Perception and reality
American gun violence can feel like an unsolvable problem, with every mass shooting, like last week’s killings in Maine, affirming that the situation is getting worse. But the U.S. has in fact made some progress over the past few decades, enacting policies that have saved lives.

That is the conclusion of a new study by Patrick Sharkey and Megan Kang at Princeton. Stricter gun laws passed by 40 states from 1991 to 2016 reduced gun deaths by nearly 4,300 in 2016, or about 10 percent of the nationwide total. States with stricter laws, such as background checks and waiting periods, consistently had fewer gun deaths, as this chart by my colleague Ashley Wu shows:

image

Sharkey told me that the results had surprised him. He has studied violent crime for years, and did not believe that stricter gun laws had a major effect in reducing it. His new takeaway: “The challenge of gun violence is not intractable, and in fact we have just lived through a period of enormous progress that was driven by public policy.”

The country’s progress on guns may surprise you, too. It certainly surprised me. It’s worth reflecting on why. If the data is clear, why haven’t we heard more about these outcomes? To my mind, the lack of attention shows the narrow view that many of us often take toward gun policy.

The smaller things
The national conversation about gun violence focuses on big federal policy ideas. Activists and pundits often speak about the need for a federal law enacting universal background checks or banning assault weapons. Anything short of action at the national level will fail to make the U.S. as safe as Canada, Europe or Japan, the argument goes.

It’s true that guns kill many more people in the U.S. than in other rich countries, and America will likely remain an outlier for the foreseeable future. But the study by Sharkey and Kang shows that changes at the state level can have an effect. Even policies that seem limited, like safety-training requirements or age restrictions, add up.

“There’s no single policy that is going to eliminate the flow or circulation of guns within and across states,” Sharkey said. “But the idea is these kinds of regulations accumulate.”

After all, America’s gun problem is rooted in easy access to firearms. In every country, people get into arguments, hold racist views or suffer from mental health issues. But when these problems turn violent, quick access to guns makes that violence much more likely to become lethal.

Anything that adds barriers to picking up a firearm in such moments reduces deaths, whether it’s incremental state policies or broader federal laws. The new study is one part of a broader line of research demonstrating that point.

Among the many new laws put in place since 1991: California required background checks on private gun sales in 1991, Massachusetts tightened child-access laws in 1998 and Virginia restricted gun ownership by people with mental illnesses in 2008.

After 2016
There is a major caveat to the progress that Sharkey and Kang documented: It seems to have ended.

The new study cuts off in 2016 because later data was not available at the time of the research, Sharkey said. Since 2016, many states have loosened their gun laws, in some cases because Supreme Court rulings have forced them to do so. And firearms sales have surged, particularly during the Covid pandemic.

Congress did pass a narrow gun control law last year that extended background checks and funded anti-violence policies, and some states have continued tightening gun laws. On net, though, U.S. gun laws have become looser in the past seven years.

Gun deaths have increased over the same period, and mass shootings have become more common. These trends — a rise in deaths, looser laws and increased firearm purchases — are likely related, Sharkey said. He pointed out that the six states that had weakened their gun laws from 1991 to 2016 appeared to have experienced more gun deaths than other factors suggested they should have.

As more states have loosened their laws in recent years, they have set themselves up for more gun deaths. “If states take basic steps to regulate guns, it will save thousands and thousands of lives,” Sharkey said. The opposite is also true.

---

Sun wrote:


Yeah, that's him. He's from Michigan, went to school in Battle Creek which wasn't my neck of the woods necessarily but he was close enough that we hung out a few times, went to some LAN parties together. One of them was actually out at his house, beautiful spot in the woods

Four weapons, btw, mea culpa. Jesus. Watched the video and saw his face and heard his voice. Man...

Lunar wrote:


“If states take basic steps to regulate guns, it will save thousands and thousands of lives,” Sharkey said. The opposite is also true.

The problem with making laws at the state level is the current make up the Supreme Court. They are declaring many state gun regulations unconstitutional.

"The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen is a devastating decision for anyone who cares about reducing gun violence."

"It massively expands the scope of the Second Amendment, abandons more than a decade of case law governing which gun laws are permitted by the Constitution, and replaces this case law with a new legal framework that, as Justice Stephen Breyer writes in dissent, “imposes a task on the lower courts that judges cannot easily accomplish.”"

https://www.vox.com/2022/6/23/23180205/supreme-cou...

Yea, I agree it should be something on the federal level. But considering the make up of our congress, it's a perpetual uphill battle and that's putting it mildly. State level is better than nothing I suppose.

Lunar wrote:

No because then it goes to the Supreme Court where it is tossed out and national precedent is set.

It needs to be on the constitutional level. Millions of people need to tell their congressional representatives that this is an important issue. Work on getting it done or we will throw you out and elect someone who will.

For those wondering if policy changes work:
image

benstylus wrote:

Perfect is the enemy of the good. As I said if we can't even get the next budget agreed on, another looming government shutdown in 2 weeks, I'll take state level, federal level, and anything in between in terms of gun control. Defeating the ultra conservative Supreme Court will take another lifetime and dozens of presidential elections. Elections have consequences. And countless lives will inevitably be lost in the interim, let's save as many as we can.

Nice @incubus421 that's a good way to highlight the difference. Talking points be saying liberal cities are hellholes...

I mean they are, it's just that there's less countryside bumpkins blowing each other away over disagreements. Also important to note that a lot of the blue states at the bottom of the chart are hyper-dense and do not attract gun owners by design. So it's sorta true, but also sorta bullcrap.

benstylus wrote:
|Republicans sold their souls to the NRA years ago and any GOP Representative who even hints they might vote for gun control is the one who will be voted out in the primary. The voters are less influential in picking their Representatives than the local party who picks the candidates that they present to the voters.

I recently read that less than 20 of the Representatives in the House actually come from districts that could go to either party. Gerrymandering has been so effective that the House is going to be highly partisan (and therefore ineffective) for a long time.

Typically if you are eligible to vote in the general election you are eligible to vote in a primary. Some primaries are locked to party affiliation, but you can choose what party to be in. Just because you are a member of one party doesn't mean you always have to vote the party line either.

We can't just pretend we have no voice over the candidates who are chosen.

DarkFact wrote:

Yes, you could say less people are shot in rural areas, because way less people are there. Less population size = less of [any thing or event]. By this logic, you could say any of the following:

Less people die of cancer in rural areas.
Less people get in car accidents in rural areas.
Less people get divorced in rural areas

or we can spin it the other way...

Less people go to school in rural areas.
Less people own homes in rural areas.
Less people know how to drive in rural areas.

Are all of these statements true? Sure, but it's not an accurate way to represent data.

That's why they are per capita rates, not just the overall deaths. To account for the difference between heavily populated urban areas and more spread out rural areas.

benstylus wrote:
Unless a candidate has a lot of backing, they have little chance of winning a primary - let alone a general election. Politicians used to be referred to as public servants, but elections at every level have become more about who the party can get elected than who is the best person to serve the public. The local and state party organizations pick a candidate that fits a certain profile and supports them. Local elections are important because most career politicians start in local government and move up, but the party only continues to support them if they prove continued loyalty to the party line. The biggest fear of any Senator or Representative is that their own party will support another candidate in the primary. As Cheney and Kinzinger demonstrated, bucking the party line is a political death sentence.

For (at least) the 2026 election, there was a website you could go to and take a survey of how you felt on the issues. An algorithm would then tell you which candidate was most aligned with your responses. However, since the debut of televised debates, voters have been swayed by image over substance. Who looked more poised in the front of the camera and who looked more nervous? Who looked like a guy you could sit down and have a beer with? Who got off the best zingers?

A lot of voting is still indoctrination. Our family has always voted "fill in the blank party" because they always believed that party aligned with their beliefs and the kids continue the tradition.

incubus421 wrote:

Not what I said or meant. I meant there were less country bumpkins blowing each other away in New York, but it's still a craphole. And said "they by design and legislation repulse gun ownership and second amendment advocacy, so I'm not shocked to see they're at the bottom of the list for gun activity". Not that one necessarily guarantees the other; I haven't looked at the data, but I suspect there's significantly more gun violence in schools than at gun ranges, for instance, even though guns aren't allowed on school grounds and are promoted at ranges. I wouldn't bet my life on it, it's just a hunch.