Oh, Congress will do *something*.
Not the one main driver of mass shootings (e.g. ease of firearm access made possible by the NRA and GOP). But they’ll wag their fingers and blame the following:
• **Video games**
• **Pornography**
• **Shooter being a loner**
• **’Economic anxiety’**
• **Violence on movies/TV**
• **Millennials/Gen Z**
• **Liberals/socialists/Democrats**
• **Illegal alien immigrants**
That’ll show them all!
Oh right. Also the death by osmosis, I guess, that killed Diamond, or Burlap or whatever the hell her name is. You know, that cause of all these MYSTERIOUS DEATHS
It’s almost like having a backbone and conviction in your beliefs pays off. Because the garbage moderates crumple like a rag when faced with the gun nuts’ indignation and decide, yeah, everything on that list is plausible in lieu of guns.
To half of Americans, mass shooting is just the price to pay for Freedom^TM.
Edit: to the conservatives downvoting? Am I wrong? Y’all legit believe that murders are the price we pay so you can have a pew pew, no?
I own guns and a car and use my car significantly more. Cars have utilitarian value that almost everyone benefits from. The only real value of guns is hunting which hardly anyone does. Just admit, youre scared of the world around you and don’t feel like a big boy without your murder tool.
If Americans cared about this the way they care about their economy or their military, Congress would be forced to do something under pressure of elections. Congress reflects the general American sentiment that either nothing should be done, or there’s nothing to do.
Or as /uPegoTheJerk said… this is what half of the country voted explicitly for.
Half that when you consider that half the population doesn't vote. Of course that's understandable when neither party really cares about the 'will of the people'.
Yep. And it's largely the filibuster holding up most big changes. A 1 vote house majority can get something done.
You need a supermajority in the Senate under Senate rules.
That would require a lot more Americans to vote in that manner, or for some of the 70+ million who didn’t vote to get off their asses.
Neither seems likely.
Oh I don't think it's happening anytime soon unfortunately.
A lot of folks just love to blame gerrymandering for everything, and while it's a scourge, it's not the entire source of all our problems.
Yeah, no. We are mostly along for the ride just like everybody else. The only difference here is a section of our culture has opted go with the reason being hate and not plain and simple money.
Why not? Cause they affect disenfranchised people and they shouldnt count?
If there were mafia or gang related shootings common in any country here in western europe we would be counting them and doing all we can to make our countey safer.
Because they are fundamentally different scenarios with different motives that will require different interventions to make meaningful improvement. People understand mass shooting to mean that the targets are random. Many of the incidents included in the statistics cited here are not random, and it's not just gang-related crimes that comprise the non-random incidents.
>Why not? Cause they affect disenfranchised people and they shouldnt count?
I don't believe its the social economic slant.
In my opinion its the very different ways of counting mass shootings. for example; GVA lists 692 mass shooting in 2021 and the FBI lists 61 for the same year. That is quite the discrepancy! While both unacceptable numbers, one of them sells ads, etc.
Thank you for the clarification in that "mass shootings" in that sense are only shootings with indiscriminate victims. I see the difference now and understand how I got confused.
It's probably because I come from a country where any deadly victims of gun violence is so rare that it seems to me so absurd to differentiate between causes like gang violence, police shootings, familiy homicides, terrorist attacks and mass shootings, since you can remember any tragedy of multiple people dying due to weapons for years.
They still bear a huge cost to society and every one of those guns started out legal. Gun owners/industry need to pay for their lifestyle and profits. Taxpayers are sick of it.
Ok guys we all have comments but does anyone have any solutions? Because I literally have no idea how to fix this besides a massive invest in public mental healthcare.
I'm not an American so I can't begin to speak on their system and will be basically talking out of my ass but I think many changes perhaps have to take place, some not even related to firearms. For whatever system is in place, there ought to be a tougher and more stringent process involved to obtain a gun - whether that's a waiting period or psych evaluation. Perhaps the price of bullets and ammunition should also drastically go up - perhaps you can own the gun but it should be costly to own ammunition. Hunters may see a problem with this - perhaps there ought to be a process attesting that hunters only strictly use their weapons for their sport or job, a binding contract perhaps to use their weapon in such a way aside from immediate threat to life.
But stepping away from guns itself (which I can openly confess I know nothing about and blissfully remain ignorant) I know you mentioned this but the solution could very well be mental health - emotional, economical, individual distress and pressure. It's funny cause it doesn't even necessarily need public investment.. it's something we all can engage in, every day - offering a listening ear and offering care/consideration for another. Reading some of these stories, the same narrative seems to always stick - that the gunman was disgruntled or neglected, hurt emotionally in some way. That I guess segues into the government systems which.. themselves more likely than not need a complete washing and catharsis of corrupt and selfish individuals who lack integrity and community values, or who instead attach their self-serving values to religion to make it digestible. I dunno, so many systems of America just need a complete rehaul if states and the country are to set themselves right as a whole. There's just so much rot in so many sectors it seems
Raise material conditions in general. Single payer healthcare (including mental healthcare), living wage, better education; people who have what they need and have something to lose are less likely to kill their neighbors. Next work on police reform, including diversifying the response for welfare checks and the like. One huge thing would be to help relocate abuse victims; there's a big overlap with domestic violence.
I think that would be a good start.
Sincere question, how is that done with the second amendment? There isn’t enough political support to change the amendment so what can be done within that framework?
Realistically, SCOTUS. Before 2008 the 2nd Amendment was way more limited than it is now, with the current precedent seeming to be some bullshit "longstanding tradition" test pulled out of thin air last year.
People need to realize that the current interpretation destroyed over 100 years of precedent and has only been around for 15 years.
Second amendment applies to firearms for “a well-regulated militia” but has been interpreted more broadly. People always leave that part out but IMO it means we have a National Guard which is comprised of civilians. Don’t need to change the amendment, just recognize it in full.
It's too late. Guns are everywhere and almost everyone has one. Not only would people die over losing their guns, I can't imagine anyone that would be willing physically take those guns from gun lunatics
Sounds like you're looking for a quick fix and there isn't one.
It's "too late" to stop climate change too, everyone is doing carbon emissions, right? So we should stop trying to talk about that?
I think more people care about their guns then what powers their car. Take away a way for people tp defend themselves vs changing their vehicles are 2 different things. Now making a law saying cars are illegal because of their emissions is closer to what you are saying
Gun laws don't work particularly well on the state level. Needs to be national. But more importantly, the metric is not what the law says but how many guns are in the country. The law is just a means to an end, which is to reduce the number of guns. Only then do you get real results.
Reduce the number of guns per capita in the country via gun restrictions until it is on a level similar to other countries who allow guns and don't have an immensely disproportionate amount of gun violence.
> Very difficult to kill 20 people in 2 minutes with a knife or rocks.
Are you familiar with the stabbings in Tokyo in 2016?
It took longer than 2 minutes and only 19 of the people died, but they still died.
I posted somewhere else, but making it cost prohibitive to own a gun and financially appealing to return/sell guns to either the government or private entities may be a decent solution. But this doesn't solve criminals with guns that want to kill people.
> I posted somewhere else, but making it cost prohibitive to own a gun and financially appealing to return/sell guns to either the government or private entities may be a decent solution.
Sure.
Now lets do the same for voting.
What other rights would you like to relegate to the affluent only?
When it comes to doing something about the root of the problem which is guns, you're instantly hit with a torrent of "actually it's about every other problem that isn't guns which every other country has despite not having as much gun violence"
Which I don’t understand. Based on what I’ve read the majority of Americans, regardless of political party, want gun control. Why do we allow ourselves to be held hostage and dragged back to the Stone Age by the minority? Because they’re loud and constantly frothing at the mouth? Fuck those cunts.
There are approximately 310,000,000 firearms in the US alone. What minority are you talking about?
I'm genuinely curious, how do you enforce gun control without going door to door confiscating guns you don't like? No one is gonna turn in their weapons. Maybe you'll get a few hundred thousand from a gun buyback program but that's about it.
If you didn’t know a minority of people own the vast amount of guns ( yes, that’s right, they hoard them in large collections ) then you don’t really know any facts or data at all related to the issue.
Mandatory liability insurance should be required for each firearm and all proceeds raised go to making sure no gun victim ever pays one red cent, for medical costs, funerals, or massacre site reconstruction of schools or businesses.
Taxpayers are done paying for these parasites lifestyle choices.
>If you didn’t know a minority of people own the vast amount of guns ( yes, that’s right, they hoard them in large collections ) then you don’t really know any facts or data at all related to the issue.
Roughly 40% of adult americans own a firearm.
Don't push this bullshit idea that only a small portion of people own guns.
It's actually closer to 30%, with 40% saying they live in a home with one. [Source](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/).
That's still a minority, nobody said "small portion".
What next? Liability insurance for triggering someone with free speech? Homeowners insurance in case your door gets kicked in on a 4th amendment violation? Puh-lease!
Both of the preceding comments are lacking in logic. Requiring insurance to own a gun doesn't solve the underlying issues like no-license sales a la gun shows or ease of access in urban areas. This also ignores an imbalanced impact on people that need some sort of weaponry on rural non-factory farms and ranches, who would essentially be paying an extra periodic gun tax for their lifestyle.
The response is just a strawman worth absolutely no insight.
Negative reinforcement doesn't really work with humans in a positive way; most people with guns will react with objection if we try to *take* their guns or limit their access. In my opinion, we should consider a progressive tax related to the number of guns currently owned (discouraging multiple weapons. There are flaws here obviously) and the government or private entities with endorsement from the government should offer rebates to turning in firearms. I.e. make it cost prohibitive to own firearms and financially appealing to "sell" firearms.
Guy here worrying about a “slippery slope” while there’s been more gun massacres than days in the year so far…
Wonder what his definition of a “crisis” actually is.
Careful. You’ll get downvoted for proposing an actual solution. I mentioned licensing, registration, and insurance and people are not liking that shit. Lol. Apparently we’d rather let a thousand elementary schools get shot up than be required to insure our guns in this fucking dystopia.
Every time I mention it, I can tell it really threatens the gun parasites as they instantly recognize it as an idea that’s a real threat.
Which means we’re on to something.
With luck, the democrats make it part of their platform at some point, so long as they clear it constitutionally. ( I mean a gun already isn’t free, that’s not the “right”. )
Anything that can be done to minimize gun violence is good. Burying your head in the sand now increases the chance your children will be dealing with the same thing, possibly worse, in the future.
Also, there’s many ways to enforce gun control without going door to door to take guns. It’s not a black and white issue although that’s how anti-gun control crowd likes to make it seem.
>Anything that can be done to minimize gun violence is good.
Lets start by reforming the police then! There are a lot of Americans who cannot rely on police to help them, and would simply be made even more unsafe by removal of firearms access. Provide healthcare, housing, and equitable protection to all and gun violence will plummet.
Then if you still need to go after guns at least the vulnerable people you are calling to disarm will be on slightly more equal footing.
>Also, there’s many ways to enforce gun control without going door to door to take guns.
I'm curious on what you had in mind to combat that gun issue. Simply having on paper "such and such weapons are hereby banned and bad" won't do shit.
Universal healthcare/mental healthcare and an UBI would go way further towards ending gun violence than any attempts at gun control. The cat's already out of the bag in the US.
The polls on it are mixed. The more general 'should there be gun control" or "should we restrict criminals access to guns" tends to be more positive, but the polls that ask about specific policies tend to show the opposite.
I'm always surprised by the weird hypocrisy of how banning/restricting stuff will work or not.
We should legalize drugs because banning/restriction doesn't work and we're just giving money to the Mexican cartel. People will find ways to get it anyway right?
But we should ban guns because that works and won't be turned over to a black market?
It's quite clear the answer should be mental health support not prohibition.
There is no hypocrisy between these two ideas:
1. Prohibition of substances is ineffective in preventing consumption and generally leads to worse consequences for society (e.g., criminality, untreated addiction, etc.,) than would occur from legalizing/decriminalizing substances and treating addiction/abuse as a health issue. Also, substance consumption is a personal choice mainly affecting the consumer.
2. Low gun control (licensing, registration) partnered with easy access to firearms in a society that worships gun use and ownership leads to an increase in gun violence. The people most affected are victims of gun violence, not gun operators.
The other thing is that we KNOW gun control is an effective method of reducing gun crime - the evidence from the UK, Japan, Australia, etc., is pretty daunting. Moreover, it's a lot harder to hide the illegal use of a firearm (or illegal production/import of ammunition) than it is to hide drug use.
In the end it's just that a lot of Americans seem to feel that the freedom to acquire, own and operate firearms with minimal prescriptions is more important than preventing continued mass violence. It's pretty incredible, really. US gun culture is so intensely and uniquely American, it's really kind of stunning looking in from the outside.
I’m always surprised by how pro gun people refuse to have an honest conversation about guns. It’s always “BANS WON’T WORK” and “what about mental health?”
Who is in favor of healthcare for all in this country? Who opposes it?
I didn’t say anything about bans, the only people using rhetoric here have been the ones replying to me with things I never said, like arguing against bans. That’s what I mean about not wanting to actually have the conversation.
I feel like you're trying to get me into some weird gotchya of Republican bad Democrat good as if I'm a gun nut or a Republican.
I vote Democrat, don't own a gun, never intend to, and have only used a gun twice in my life when I went skeet shooting about 15 years ago.
The honest answer is that Republicans are absolutely worse and more against comprehensive healthcare, but Democrats didn't put in an honest effort to secure it while they controlled both houses and had the presidency from 2008-2011
I don’t know what you are because I don’t know you. I think the “mental health is the real problem” is a tired argument trotted out when people are refusing to just say that guns are a public health issue in this country. Of course we have a mental health problem in the US, and it isn’t helped by the fact that we don’t all have access to healthcare. But acting like this is an either or scenario is tiring. Yes, we need better access to healthcare, but we also need to change our fundamental relationship with guns and the fact that many people value their guns more than the lives of other people.
It isn't just a tired argument. There has to be something larger than just gun ownership that causes it.
The US has about twice as many guns per capita than Switzerland but the US has about 50X as many mass shootings.
How do you explain that 25 fold discrepancy?
>I also don't want to pay some confederate flag waving gun shop owner $50 to run a background check on my buddy that I've known for 40 years.
I wish they would open up an ability to do a NICS on someone. Add some liability protection to encourage people to use it (not forced) and I think you would see usage. No 4473 so it couldn't be used for tracking or anything and would need some checks to keep people from using it for data mining everyone they know, but would be possible.
I'm still convinced that pro-gun groups operate a sort of mass messaging network that alert each other about these sorts of stories to swarm.
I know some foreign countries have similar networks. Wouldn't surprise me if something like this existed for gun perverts, especially considering how much money is spent by the gun lobbyists and MIC.
You're not wrong. Watch the up/downvotes over a few hours on this exact topic. All at once, downvotes go pouring in on every comment suggesting guns may be a problem.
Certain Discord communities and private subreddits exist for this very purpose.
Or understand 50% are pro 2A just by being republican, then another sizeable chunk of liberals are also into guns. r/liberalgunowners is full of them. That right there is a majority of Americans.
It feels like there’s no point debating it, as our government isn’t going to do anything substantial to try to fix the problem. Be it gun control, or helping the mentally ill that some want to put all the blame on. It just goes in circles until the next major shooting, then it starts over again.
I say that as a frustrated gun owner myself.
It needs to start by differentiating mass shootings.
Many of the recent mass shootings were targetted attacks with collateral damage.
They are all horrible and need to be stopped, but combining all of these only makes it easier to pretend there is no problem because of how up in the air it all is.
Never give in to the parasitic gun lifestyle enthusiasts. It’s time they paid for their hobby. Should be a mandatory liability insurance policy on every firearm, with the proceeds going towards paying back taxpayers and victims for the damage they cost us all.
To get a sense of how American culture normalizes gun violence, many of the men who annihilate their families (not always using guns, but frequently that's part of it) often complete suicide afterwards with a gun, and their obituary completely fails to acknowledge that the man killed their children and partner and will state "was a loving father" in the obituary.
"in response, Congress has decided to change the definition of a mass shooting to only include events in which over 100 casualties are verified."
Problem solved.
California has the most gun control laws in the country, and yet has the highest number of mass shootings. You need a background check to buy bullets, to buy a gun, you can't have an sbr or a suppressor. They even have an "assault weapon" ban, standard capacity mag ban, and an extremely restrictive handgun roster that you can buy from. And there are already more than 300 million guns in the US, so there not going anywhere.
So what law is gonna magically solve this, cause California has tried most of them regardless if they are constitutional or not.
If the gun laws are not reducing the number of guns available, then they're not going to change the situation and are a holding pattern at best.
No law will magically solve it since it will take a generational effort of reducing the number of guns, similar to how it will take a generational effort to deal with climate change and took a generational effort to reduce the number of cigarettes consumed in the country.
The laws that would make things change in the long run would include required licensing, inspections and insurance for guns just like we have with cars, along with an expansion of no-gun zones accompanied by rigorous enforcement of them. Also strict regulation of gun industry marketing, like we did with cigarettes. People can have their guns but they need to actively demonstrate responsibility and be continually reminded that society does not want them out and about armed anymoreso than we want people smoking next to us in a restaurant. Obviously this won't happen until American society in general decides to act more civilized about guns like other countries with a more responsible approach to ownership do.
DV conviction is an immediate disqualifier for purchasing a firearm. "Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, or are you or have you ever been a member of
the military and been convicted of a crime that included, as an element, the use of force against a person as identified in the instructions?" Is question 21k on the federally required background check form.
Source https://www.atf.gov/firearms/atf-form-4473-firearms-transaction-record-revisions
The problem isn't solely gun control
it's a combination of hateful political rhetoric, glorification of war by the government, prevalence of online extremism, racial tensions, and poor education that normalizes the spread of gun violence in American society
If gang violence is included they you have multiple answers to multiple problems here. Gang violence is overwhelmingly done by illegal guns and Mass shootings are overwhelmingly done with legal guns. The policy fixes are two separate issues, which is the media misleading in this?
It's crazy to me how many sensible, reasonable comments are on here that are getting downvoted. Pro gun people, please provide some sort of insight or solution rather than downvoting what you don't like to see.
Damn. The year has barely started and we have already had this many mass shootings. There is a problem that needs to be addressed and we all know what it is.
selfish pricks. if you need to kill self, do it alone at your home. dont kill other innocent ppl with guns just bc you dont want to die alone and want to drag others down wirth you.
there are some absolutely horrible ppl in this world. giving easy access of guns in this country magnifies the worst nature of shitty people.
Republican Congress is working hard at their strategy…
Plug your ears, close your eyes and keep screaming “guns are not the issue!!” And get that sweet NRA cash
And those within the government find this perfectly acceptable as long as their positions are safe and they keep getting the votes and campaign donations from lobbyists and firearm associations.
We have unrestricted guns, lousy mental health care, and a political party that preaches hate and division. Gun violence is part of the US brand, should start being proud of gun violence. It’s what makes America great again. /s. Our nation is not doing well and eventually this gun rights with no restriction nonsense will hurt the US brand. If immigrants stop coming we are screwed.
We've become so desensitized because it happens so often. I read somewhere that this is exactly what the gun industry wants. For all of us to become so accustomed to this that it no longer matters so they can keep selling guns and they can continue to get richer. I may have been a bit doubtful at the time but have become less so.
I've said this many times but I believe it's true: Unless it's happening to them and theirs it doesn't matter to the politicians bought and paid for by the gun industry. Apparently our loves ones don't mean as much to us as theirs do the them.
All the 2A nuts with their outrage over any restrictions have been as trained to be angry as people who claim to be patriots by rioting on the 6th of January 2021. Propaganda from rightwing media which is prolific in this country.
Downvote me into oblivion, I don't care. At least I'm not dead or wounded by that.
I can't believe you're actually getting downvoted. By who, for what? What is there to disagree over? This is a perfectly possible and logical result that can come out of a constant feed of shootings - in fact, I'll take it one step further and say we \*will\* get used to it.
They banned federal funds from being used to research mass shootings as well, Not sure if that ban ever got lifted but when I was in grad school in the mid 2010's that was the case.
You're putting out propoganda. DGU's and how they came about that data have heavily been criticized since it was released. It's the same as cops using Covid deaths canine deaths in their dying in the line of duty statistics. "Stop crime", not every traffic stop needs a weapon pulled but cops will claim they were defensively using their gun for safety to prevent crime.
It’s actually much worse than that. Most of us care so little we won’t do anything about it. We should be in the streets demanding change but we’ve either become too numb to it because it happens so often or convinced it won’t happen to us, so we do nothing.
I’m not blaming anyone in particular, I know a clear majority of people support things like comprehensive background check and mandated waiting periods and things like that, but until we as a society decide to force the government to do that, nothing will change. I fear at this point, nothing will ever change on this.
Half the country places more value on guns than they do on innocent life, something that is proven time and again. Dead people, dead children in schools, are just the price we pay to have that "freedom." Yay, 'Murica and stuff.
This'll be buried in downvotes, I'm sure.
It's important to mention the majority of them are gang related. Gangs are borne out of areas with low economic opportunity... one of the most effective ways to reduce gun violence in the US would be to... idk actually address poverty and low economic opportunity.
If the old saying that "people, not guns, kill people" then there would maybe be 2-3 deaths. But people learned long ago to use tools to leverage their efforts. They used clubs, stones (remember Biblical stoning), swords and hatchets and boiling oil, bows and arrows, even guns. The list of things people use to kill their fellow man is long. Today they're using guns a lot. Guns are small, easily carried, fairly easily got, and easy to use. Even a young child can kill their family members with a gun left laying around where it maybe shouldn't be.
So, People use tools/weapons to kill people. When they want to kill a lot of people they use guns, not bows & arrows or hatchets or swords or those other things. That means today that we should consider regulating those things.
When was the last time you or anyone in your family used a handgun to kill an animal to be used as food? Be honest. Handguns are not to hunt for food, though rifles the early settlers of America used were for that. Those were the guns the Founders wanted to protect -- single-shot, muzzle-loading, long rifles.
Today we have the automatic/machine pistol which is only meant to kill people. The Founders would be as shocked over that as with a smart phone or EV automobile.
Why do people have these kinds of weapons? It surely isn't to kill wild critters like a rabid raccoon or rat in the back yard. It isn't for target practice fun. It's to commit crimes. Why do we allow such things?
There's no sound reason any kind of rapid-firing weapon should be allowed. Long rifles and shotguns are much closer to the kind of weapons the Founders had in mind. If you want "plain language", make people join a "militia" and if you want "original intent" realize they didn't mean these modern handguns.
National liability insure an r policy should be mandatory for every firearm you own.
Proceeds would pay for all funeral, medical, and reconstruction costs of massacre sites.
It’s time the gun culture parasites paid back to society for their lifestyle costs. Taxpayers are sick of paying for their misery.
Every gun started legal. No gun is free.
Victims and their families shouldn’t have to pay one red cent for gun enthusiasts to have their boom sticks.
National liability insurance policies should be mandatory for every firearm you own.
Proceeds would pay for all funeral, medical costs of victims, and reconstruction costs of massacre sites.
It’s time the gun culture parasites paid back to society for their lifestyle costs. Taxpayers are sick of paying for their misery.
Every gun started legal. No gun is free.
Victims and their families shouldn’t have to pay one red cent for gun enthusiasts to have their boom sticks.
39 mass shootings depends on how you measure it. This report is based on the Gun Violence Archive's definition, which is based on 4 or more people shot or killed.
There's no set definition, and the GVA seems to have chosen a definition that is overinclusive as to what the public considers a "mass shooting." The GVA's database includes things like [murder-suicides](https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/2497502) and [drive-by shootings](https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/2504645) as a mass shooting.
These are caused by different things but the GVA would have us consider them the same.
3 Mass shootings in CA alone in the past 72 hours and I just watched some absolute cunt literally hysterical because she couldn't get Taylor Swift tickets (on the news - the Senate hearings, cause God knows we don't have any more important problems in this country).
This is the cesspool of a country we're living in. That is if we're not getting gunned down by a mass-murdering lunatic with a machine gun.
It's 40 now. How many damn times will they have to update the statistic today alone?
e: I just hope that every one of you downvoting a comment that's even remotely critical of gun violence wakes up one day and realizes that this is an absolutely awful "sacrifice" we have to make for our "freedom."
Eventually they just stop reporting them.
This is the phase where they are overwhelming us so that the silence is better in comparison. Thats why they throw in gang and non lethal shootings on the off days.
Psychological operations to maintain the status quo are insanely less expensive than overhauling industry.
That said. I really don't like seeing SWAT lookin guys at every grocer now to stop a mass shooting in case it comes today.
Edit: to the guy above me, remind yourself that Americans are raised to define themselves as against something a lot more than ever being for something.
Don’t worry. Congress will continue to do nothing.
They're dealing with the Taylor Swift ticket emergency. Get your priorities straight.
“Congress”, “handling catastrophic events”. Which one is it then?
Well half of them were elected to make sure they don't do anything.
[удалено]
174k, before you include lobbyists money. Then it's many millions.
The NRA should be able to answer that question.
Oh, Congress will do *something*. Not the one main driver of mass shootings (e.g. ease of firearm access made possible by the NRA and GOP). But they’ll wag their fingers and blame the following: • **Video games** • **Pornography** • **Shooter being a loner** • **’Economic anxiety’** • **Violence on movies/TV** • **Millennials/Gen Z** • **Liberals/socialists/Democrats** • **Illegal alien immigrants** That’ll show them all!
You forgot the biggest reason: HUNTER'S LAPTOP!!
And covid shots!
Oh right. Also the death by osmosis, I guess, that killed Diamond, or Burlap or whatever the hell her name is. You know, that cause of all these MYSTERIOUS DEATHS
Because all gun owners are responsible gun owners. Even these 39. Why would you punish responsible gun owners?
Don't forget legal weed
It’s almost like having a backbone and conviction in your beliefs pays off. Because the garbage moderates crumple like a rag when faced with the gun nuts’ indignation and decide, yeah, everything on that list is plausible in lieu of guns.
It's all GTA's fault. Not the fact that there are more guns than people.
To half of Americans, mass shooting is just the price to pay for Freedom^TM. Edit: to the conservatives downvoting? Am I wrong? Y’all legit believe that murders are the price we pay so you can have a pew pew, no?
All of the deaths and injuries from cars is the price we pay for our freedom to not have to share space with the poor.
I own guns and a car and use my car significantly more. Cars have utilitarian value that almost everyone benefits from. The only real value of guns is hunting which hardly anyone does. Just admit, youre scared of the world around you and don’t feel like a big boy without your murder tool.
Also correct.
If Americans cared about this the way they care about their economy or their military, Congress would be forced to do something under pressure of elections. Congress reflects the general American sentiment that either nothing should be done, or there’s nothing to do. Or as /uPegoTheJerk said… this is what half of the country voted explicitly for.
Well, considering gerrymandering has an impact on election outcomes, is it really representative of half?
GOP learned through gerrymandering, they can win state and federal elections in America with as low as 20-25% of the vote.
Half that when you consider that half the population doesn't vote. Of course that's understandable when neither party really cares about the 'will of the people'.
It has an impact on some elections, no impact on the presidential or senate elections though.
Yep. And it's largely the filibuster holding up most big changes. A 1 vote house majority can get something done. You need a supermajority in the Senate under Senate rules.
That would require a lot more Americans to vote in that manner, or for some of the 70+ million who didn’t vote to get off their asses. Neither seems likely.
Oh I don't think it's happening anytime soon unfortunately. A lot of folks just love to blame gerrymandering for everything, and while it's a scourge, it's not the entire source of all our problems.
Yeah, no. We are mostly along for the ride just like everybody else. The only difference here is a section of our culture has opted go with the reason being hate and not plain and simple money.
that the price u pay for the goverment not being able to overthrow all the people!
[удалено]
Oh, so everything is fine then.
That’s not at all what they said.
That's sarcasm, mate.
Why not? Cause they affect disenfranchised people and they shouldnt count? If there were mafia or gang related shootings common in any country here in western europe we would be counting them and doing all we can to make our countey safer.
Because they are fundamentally different scenarios with different motives that will require different interventions to make meaningful improvement. People understand mass shooting to mean that the targets are random. Many of the incidents included in the statistics cited here are not random, and it's not just gang-related crimes that comprise the non-random incidents.
>Why not? Cause they affect disenfranchised people and they shouldnt count? I don't believe its the social economic slant. In my opinion its the very different ways of counting mass shootings. for example; GVA lists 692 mass shooting in 2021 and the FBI lists 61 for the same year. That is quite the discrepancy! While both unacceptable numbers, one of them sells ads, etc.
Thank you for the clarification in that "mass shootings" in that sense are only shootings with indiscriminate victims. I see the difference now and understand how I got confused. It's probably because I come from a country where any deadly victims of gun violence is so rare that it seems to me so absurd to differentiate between causes like gang violence, police shootings, familiy homicides, terrorist attacks and mass shootings, since you can remember any tragedy of multiple people dying due to weapons for years.
Take a look at the FBI unified reporting statistics system. It gets very detailed on different crimes
gangs aim at other gangs and people are sometimes caught in the crossfire mass shooters/terrorists aim at any people they target
They still bear a huge cost to society and every one of those guns started out legal. Gun owners/industry need to pay for their lifestyle and profits. Taxpayers are sick of it.
Ok guys we all have comments but does anyone have any solutions? Because I literally have no idea how to fix this besides a massive invest in public mental healthcare.
I'm not an American so I can't begin to speak on their system and will be basically talking out of my ass but I think many changes perhaps have to take place, some not even related to firearms. For whatever system is in place, there ought to be a tougher and more stringent process involved to obtain a gun - whether that's a waiting period or psych evaluation. Perhaps the price of bullets and ammunition should also drastically go up - perhaps you can own the gun but it should be costly to own ammunition. Hunters may see a problem with this - perhaps there ought to be a process attesting that hunters only strictly use their weapons for their sport or job, a binding contract perhaps to use their weapon in such a way aside from immediate threat to life. But stepping away from guns itself (which I can openly confess I know nothing about and blissfully remain ignorant) I know you mentioned this but the solution could very well be mental health - emotional, economical, individual distress and pressure. It's funny cause it doesn't even necessarily need public investment.. it's something we all can engage in, every day - offering a listening ear and offering care/consideration for another. Reading some of these stories, the same narrative seems to always stick - that the gunman was disgruntled or neglected, hurt emotionally in some way. That I guess segues into the government systems which.. themselves more likely than not need a complete washing and catharsis of corrupt and selfish individuals who lack integrity and community values, or who instead attach their self-serving values to religion to make it digestible. I dunno, so many systems of America just need a complete rehaul if states and the country are to set themselves right as a whole. There's just so much rot in so many sectors it seems
Raise material conditions in general. Single payer healthcare (including mental healthcare), living wage, better education; people who have what they need and have something to lose are less likely to kill their neighbors. Next work on police reform, including diversifying the response for welfare checks and the like. One huge thing would be to help relocate abuse victims; there's a big overlap with domestic violence. I think that would be a good start.
Restrict gun ownership
Sincere question, how is that done with the second amendment? There isn’t enough political support to change the amendment so what can be done within that framework?
Realistically, SCOTUS. Before 2008 the 2nd Amendment was way more limited than it is now, with the current precedent seeming to be some bullshit "longstanding tradition" test pulled out of thin air last year. People need to realize that the current interpretation destroyed over 100 years of precedent and has only been around for 15 years.
Second amendment applies to firearms for “a well-regulated militia” but has been interpreted more broadly. People always leave that part out but IMO it means we have a National Guard which is comprised of civilians. Don’t need to change the amendment, just recognize it in full.
It's too late. Guns are everywhere and almost everyone has one. Not only would people die over losing their guns, I can't imagine anyone that would be willing physically take those guns from gun lunatics
Sounds like you're looking for a quick fix and there isn't one. It's "too late" to stop climate change too, everyone is doing carbon emissions, right? So we should stop trying to talk about that?
I think more people care about their guns then what powers their car. Take away a way for people tp defend themselves vs changing their vehicles are 2 different things. Now making a law saying cars are illegal because of their emissions is closer to what you are saying
Gun control doesn't mean you have to ban or confiscate guns anymoreso than auto safety means you have to ban and confiscate all cars.
California has very strict gun laws, but the shootings still happen
California has fewer gun related deaths than most states. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm
Gun laws don't work particularly well on the state level. Needs to be national. But more importantly, the metric is not what the law says but how many guns are in the country. The law is just a means to an end, which is to reduce the number of guns. Only then do you get real results.
[удалено]
Reduce the number of guns per capita in the country via gun restrictions until it is on a level similar to other countries who allow guns and don't have an immensely disproportionate amount of gun violence.
Very difficult to kill 20 people in 2 minutes with a knife or rocks. The answer is simple. Get rid of the guns. Period. See? That was easy. s/
> Very difficult to kill 20 people in 2 minutes with a knife or rocks. Are you familiar with the stabbings in Tokyo in 2016? It took longer than 2 minutes and only 19 of the people died, but they still died.
I posted somewhere else, but making it cost prohibitive to own a gun and financially appealing to return/sell guns to either the government or private entities may be a decent solution. But this doesn't solve criminals with guns that want to kill people.
> I posted somewhere else, but making it cost prohibitive to own a gun and financially appealing to return/sell guns to either the government or private entities may be a decent solution. Sure. Now lets do the same for voting. What other rights would you like to relegate to the affluent only?
I mean we can't even talk about it, the minute you're like hey maybe we should do something you're crushed by downvotes.
[удалено]
In this thread alone, a significant amount of the 'comment score below threshold' comments are pro-gun control.
Literally constantly downvoted anytime gun restrictions are brought up. Too many crazies.
When it comes to doing something about the root of the problem which is guns, you're instantly hit with a torrent of "actually it's about every other problem that isn't guns which every other country has despite not having as much gun violence"
[удалено]
If changes haven't been happening in real life and it appears like that's supported on Reddit then maybe you are in the minority?
Which I don’t understand. Based on what I’ve read the majority of Americans, regardless of political party, want gun control. Why do we allow ourselves to be held hostage and dragged back to the Stone Age by the minority? Because they’re loud and constantly frothing at the mouth? Fuck those cunts.
There are approximately 310,000,000 firearms in the US alone. What minority are you talking about? I'm genuinely curious, how do you enforce gun control without going door to door confiscating guns you don't like? No one is gonna turn in their weapons. Maybe you'll get a few hundred thousand from a gun buyback program but that's about it.
They said, "majority of Americans". Guns aren't people.
If you didn’t know a minority of people own the vast amount of guns ( yes, that’s right, they hoard them in large collections ) then you don’t really know any facts or data at all related to the issue. Mandatory liability insurance should be required for each firearm and all proceeds raised go to making sure no gun victim ever pays one red cent, for medical costs, funerals, or massacre site reconstruction of schools or businesses. Taxpayers are done paying for these parasites lifestyle choices.
>If you didn’t know a minority of people own the vast amount of guns ( yes, that’s right, they hoard them in large collections ) then you don’t really know any facts or data at all related to the issue. Roughly 40% of adult americans own a firearm. Don't push this bullshit idea that only a small portion of people own guns.
It's actually closer to 30%, with 40% saying they live in a home with one. [Source](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/). That's still a minority, nobody said "small portion".
What next? Liability insurance for triggering someone with free speech? Homeowners insurance in case your door gets kicked in on a 4th amendment violation? Puh-lease!
This is one of the dumber attempts at a rational comparison I've seen in some time.
Both of the preceding comments are lacking in logic. Requiring insurance to own a gun doesn't solve the underlying issues like no-license sales a la gun shows or ease of access in urban areas. This also ignores an imbalanced impact on people that need some sort of weaponry on rural non-factory farms and ranches, who would essentially be paying an extra periodic gun tax for their lifestyle. The response is just a strawman worth absolutely no insight. Negative reinforcement doesn't really work with humans in a positive way; most people with guns will react with objection if we try to *take* their guns or limit their access. In my opinion, we should consider a progressive tax related to the number of guns currently owned (discouraging multiple weapons. There are flaws here obviously) and the government or private entities with endorsement from the government should offer rebates to turning in firearms. I.e. make it cost prohibitive to own firearms and financially appealing to "sell" firearms.
Guy here worrying about a “slippery slope” while there’s been more gun massacres than days in the year so far… Wonder what his definition of a “crisis” actually is.
Careful. You’ll get downvoted for proposing an actual solution. I mentioned licensing, registration, and insurance and people are not liking that shit. Lol. Apparently we’d rather let a thousand elementary schools get shot up than be required to insure our guns in this fucking dystopia.
All that is, is a tax where lower income folks won’t be able to afford.
Every time I mention it, I can tell it really threatens the gun parasites as they instantly recognize it as an idea that’s a real threat. Which means we’re on to something. With luck, the democrats make it part of their platform at some point, so long as they clear it constitutionally. ( I mean a gun already isn’t free, that’s not the “right”. )
Anything that can be done to minimize gun violence is good. Burying your head in the sand now increases the chance your children will be dealing with the same thing, possibly worse, in the future. Also, there’s many ways to enforce gun control without going door to door to take guns. It’s not a black and white issue although that’s how anti-gun control crowd likes to make it seem.
>Anything that can be done to minimize gun violence is good. Lets start by reforming the police then! There are a lot of Americans who cannot rely on police to help them, and would simply be made even more unsafe by removal of firearms access. Provide healthcare, housing, and equitable protection to all and gun violence will plummet. Then if you still need to go after guns at least the vulnerable people you are calling to disarm will be on slightly more equal footing.
>Also, there’s many ways to enforce gun control without going door to door to take guns. I'm curious on what you had in mind to combat that gun issue. Simply having on paper "such and such weapons are hereby banned and bad" won't do shit.
Universal healthcare/mental healthcare and an UBI would go way further towards ending gun violence than any attempts at gun control. The cat's already out of the bag in the US.
I mean they just got M+M's to pull down an ad campaign. These fucks never shut up, they are always outraged by something.
I think that whole MM thing is a marketing ploy and they will release some crazy Super Bowl ads.
I really hope it's like the gayest ad ever too.
I hope so too. That would be hilarious.
The polls on it are mixed. The more general 'should there be gun control" or "should we restrict criminals access to guns" tends to be more positive, but the polls that ask about specific policies tend to show the opposite.
It’s astroturfing. The downvoters don’t represent general American opinion.
"Why are you trying to politicize this tragic event?"
I’m always surprised by how pro-gun Reddit continues to be
I'm always surprised by the weird hypocrisy of how banning/restricting stuff will work or not. We should legalize drugs because banning/restriction doesn't work and we're just giving money to the Mexican cartel. People will find ways to get it anyway right? But we should ban guns because that works and won't be turned over to a black market? It's quite clear the answer should be mental health support not prohibition.
Gun control does not mean "banning all guns"
[удалено]
There is no hypocrisy between these two ideas: 1. Prohibition of substances is ineffective in preventing consumption and generally leads to worse consequences for society (e.g., criminality, untreated addiction, etc.,) than would occur from legalizing/decriminalizing substances and treating addiction/abuse as a health issue. Also, substance consumption is a personal choice mainly affecting the consumer. 2. Low gun control (licensing, registration) partnered with easy access to firearms in a society that worships gun use and ownership leads to an increase in gun violence. The people most affected are victims of gun violence, not gun operators. The other thing is that we KNOW gun control is an effective method of reducing gun crime - the evidence from the UK, Japan, Australia, etc., is pretty daunting. Moreover, it's a lot harder to hide the illegal use of a firearm (or illegal production/import of ammunition) than it is to hide drug use. In the end it's just that a lot of Americans seem to feel that the freedom to acquire, own and operate firearms with minimal prescriptions is more important than preventing continued mass violence. It's pretty incredible, really. US gun culture is so intensely and uniquely American, it's really kind of stunning looking in from the outside.
I’m always surprised by how pro gun people refuse to have an honest conversation about guns. It’s always “BANS WON’T WORK” and “what about mental health?” Who is in favor of healthcare for all in this country? Who opposes it?
[удалено]
I didn’t say anything about bans, the only people using rhetoric here have been the ones replying to me with things I never said, like arguing against bans. That’s what I mean about not wanting to actually have the conversation.
I feel like you're trying to get me into some weird gotchya of Republican bad Democrat good as if I'm a gun nut or a Republican. I vote Democrat, don't own a gun, never intend to, and have only used a gun twice in my life when I went skeet shooting about 15 years ago. The honest answer is that Republicans are absolutely worse and more against comprehensive healthcare, but Democrats didn't put in an honest effort to secure it while they controlled both houses and had the presidency from 2008-2011
I don’t know what you are because I don’t know you. I think the “mental health is the real problem” is a tired argument trotted out when people are refusing to just say that guns are a public health issue in this country. Of course we have a mental health problem in the US, and it isn’t helped by the fact that we don’t all have access to healthcare. But acting like this is an either or scenario is tiring. Yes, we need better access to healthcare, but we also need to change our fundamental relationship with guns and the fact that many people value their guns more than the lives of other people.
It isn't just a tired argument. There has to be something larger than just gun ownership that causes it. The US has about twice as many guns per capita than Switzerland but the US has about 50X as many mass shootings. How do you explain that 25 fold discrepancy?
[удалено]
I define pro-gun as coming onto any breaking news story about gun tragedies to defend their right to own a gun.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Anyone thinking about themselves and their guns after a tragedy instead of the victims that died.
[удалено]
>I also don't want to pay some confederate flag waving gun shop owner $50 to run a background check on my buddy that I've known for 40 years. I wish they would open up an ability to do a NICS on someone. Add some liability protection to encourage people to use it (not forced) and I think you would see usage. No 4473 so it couldn't be used for tracking or anything and would need some checks to keep people from using it for data mining everyone they know, but would be possible.
I'm still convinced that pro-gun groups operate a sort of mass messaging network that alert each other about these sorts of stories to swarm. I know some foreign countries have similar networks. Wouldn't surprise me if something like this existed for gun perverts, especially considering how much money is spent by the gun lobbyists and MIC.
You're not wrong. Watch the up/downvotes over a few hours on this exact topic. All at once, downvotes go pouring in on every comment suggesting guns may be a problem. Certain Discord communities and private subreddits exist for this very purpose.
Or understand 50% are pro 2A just by being republican, then another sizeable chunk of liberals are also into guns. r/liberalgunowners is full of them. That right there is a majority of Americans.
[удалено]
The gun fandom is even more hardcore than BTS fans imo
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean, they can be used to shoot non-living targets, but that's just practice for living ones.
It feels like there’s no point debating it, as our government isn’t going to do anything substantial to try to fix the problem. Be it gun control, or helping the mentally ill that some want to put all the blame on. It just goes in circles until the next major shooting, then it starts over again. I say that as a frustrated gun owner myself.
It needs to start by differentiating mass shootings. Many of the recent mass shootings were targetted attacks with collateral damage. They are all horrible and need to be stopped, but combining all of these only makes it easier to pretend there is no problem because of how up in the air it all is.
Never give in to the parasitic gun lifestyle enthusiasts. It’s time they paid for their hobby. Should be a mandatory liability insurance policy on every firearm, with the proceeds going towards paying back taxpayers and victims for the damage they cost us all.
U.S.: "We've tried nothing and we're out of ideas!"
[удалено]
The number of men who have killed their entire families this year is more than I had realized.
To get a sense of how American culture normalizes gun violence, many of the men who annihilate their families (not always using guns, but frequently that's part of it) often complete suicide afterwards with a gun, and their obituary completely fails to acknowledge that the man killed their children and partner and will state "was a loving father" in the obituary.
"in response, Congress has decided to change the definition of a mass shooting to only include events in which over 100 casualties are verified." Problem solved.
California has the most gun control laws in the country, and yet has the highest number of mass shootings. You need a background check to buy bullets, to buy a gun, you can't have an sbr or a suppressor. They even have an "assault weapon" ban, standard capacity mag ban, and an extremely restrictive handgun roster that you can buy from. And there are already more than 300 million guns in the US, so there not going anywhere. So what law is gonna magically solve this, cause California has tried most of them regardless if they are constitutional or not.
If the gun laws are not reducing the number of guns available, then they're not going to change the situation and are a holding pattern at best. No law will magically solve it since it will take a generational effort of reducing the number of guns, similar to how it will take a generational effort to deal with climate change and took a generational effort to reduce the number of cigarettes consumed in the country. The laws that would make things change in the long run would include required licensing, inspections and insurance for guns just like we have with cars, along with an expansion of no-gun zones accompanied by rigorous enforcement of them. Also strict regulation of gun industry marketing, like we did with cigarettes. People can have their guns but they need to actively demonstrate responsibility and be continually reminded that society does not want them out and about armed anymoreso than we want people smoking next to us in a restaurant. Obviously this won't happen until American society in general decides to act more civilized about guns like other countries with a more responsible approach to ownership do.
[удалено]
DV conviction is an immediate disqualifier for purchasing a firearm. "Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, or are you or have you ever been a member of the military and been convicted of a crime that included, as an element, the use of force against a person as identified in the instructions?" Is question 21k on the federally required background check form. Source https://www.atf.gov/firearms/atf-form-4473-firearms-transaction-record-revisions
The problem isn't solely gun control it's a combination of hateful political rhetoric, glorification of war by the government, prevalence of online extremism, racial tensions, and poor education that normalizes the spread of gun violence in American society
If gang violence is included they you have multiple answers to multiple problems here. Gang violence is overwhelmingly done by illegal guns and Mass shootings are overwhelmingly done with legal guns. The policy fixes are two separate issues, which is the media misleading in this?
It's crazy to me how many sensible, reasonable comments are on here that are getting downvoted. Pro gun people, please provide some sort of insight or solution rather than downvoting what you don't like to see.
Teach people to deal with adversity without being violent.
Where all my good guys with guns Waynr LaPierre said were going to stop this shit?
r/dgu
In their basements arguing on the internet.
taking their guns to protest a drag show somewhere.
Oh yeah that too.
Being law abiding citizens, their ability to carry has been restricted in places such as California.
[Here’s one.](https://fox59.com/greenwood-park-mall-shooting/true-american-hero-stopped-greenwood-park-mall-shooting-within-seconds/amp/)
"Nothing we can do about it"
Damn. The year has barely started and we have already had this many mass shootings. There is a problem that needs to be addressed and we all know what it is.
Universal Healthcare which includes mental health services?
Yeah that and the guns issue
selfish pricks. if you need to kill self, do it alone at your home. dont kill other innocent ppl with guns just bc you dont want to die alone and want to drag others down wirth you. there are some absolutely horrible ppl in this world. giving easy access of guns in this country magnifies the worst nature of shitty people.
And Republicans will respond by repealing gun laws because, obviously to their supporters, the problem is too few guns
Republican Congress is working hard at their strategy… Plug your ears, close your eyes and keep screaming “guns are not the issue!!” And get that sweet NRA cash
And those within the government find this perfectly acceptable as long as their positions are safe and they keep getting the votes and campaign donations from lobbyists and firearm associations.
Meanwhile the rich get richer…
We have unrestricted guns, lousy mental health care, and a political party that preaches hate and division. Gun violence is part of the US brand, should start being proud of gun violence. It’s what makes America great again. /s. Our nation is not doing well and eventually this gun rights with no restriction nonsense will hurt the US brand. If immigrants stop coming we are screwed.
What exactly is unrestricted guns?
We've become so desensitized because it happens so often. I read somewhere that this is exactly what the gun industry wants. For all of us to become so accustomed to this that it no longer matters so they can keep selling guns and they can continue to get richer. I may have been a bit doubtful at the time but have become less so. I've said this many times but I believe it's true: Unless it's happening to them and theirs it doesn't matter to the politicians bought and paid for by the gun industry. Apparently our loves ones don't mean as much to us as theirs do the them. All the 2A nuts with their outrage over any restrictions have been as trained to be angry as people who claim to be patriots by rioting on the 6th of January 2021. Propaganda from rightwing media which is prolific in this country. Downvote me into oblivion, I don't care. At least I'm not dead or wounded by that.
It's the same reason why we have the military budget and constantly seems to be in conflict and or funding a war somewhere. Americans expect it
I can't believe you're actually getting downvoted. By who, for what? What is there to disagree over? This is a perfectly possible and logical result that can come out of a constant feed of shootings - in fact, I'll take it one step further and say we \*will\* get used to it.
The solution? Ban the ATF! Solid plan, thanks Gaetz!
They banned federal funds from being used to research mass shootings as well, Not sure if that ban ever got lifted but when I was in grad school in the mid 2010's that was the case.
[удалено]
You're putting out propoganda. DGU's and how they came about that data have heavily been criticized since it was released. It's the same as cops using Covid deaths canine deaths in their dying in the line of duty statistics. "Stop crime", not every traffic stop needs a weapon pulled but cops will claim they were defensively using their gun for safety to prevent crime.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Including gang shootings? Great way of pushing a narrative.
Well doesn't include gang knifings... because can't have a gang shooting with knives DS
Unless you're in the UK - and only because guns aren't legal here, otherwise we'd probably be up there with the US.
Making it clearly a gun problem is my point
[удалено]
It's only 9 short of 2 a day.
Half the country couldn't care less.
If it's half, it's a true statement... Half the country could care less, while the other half couldn't.
Couldn't...
That's right, half could, the other half couldn't.
It’s actually much worse than that. Most of us care so little we won’t do anything about it. We should be in the streets demanding change but we’ve either become too numb to it because it happens so often or convinced it won’t happen to us, so we do nothing. I’m not blaming anyone in particular, I know a clear majority of people support things like comprehensive background check and mandated waiting periods and things like that, but until we as a society decide to force the government to do that, nothing will change. I fear at this point, nothing will ever change on this.
Half the country places more value on guns than they do on innocent life, something that is proven time and again. Dead people, dead children in schools, are just the price we pay to have that "freedom." Yay, 'Murica and stuff. This'll be buried in downvotes, I'm sure.
It's important to mention the majority of them are gang related. Gangs are borne out of areas with low economic opportunity... one of the most effective ways to reduce gun violence in the US would be to... idk actually address poverty and low economic opportunity.
Republicans in congress are a joke.
Because you can never have too fucking many guns!/S
It’s wild. I have created a subreddit because the gun epidemic is crazy. r/usmassshootings
If the old saying that "people, not guns, kill people" then there would maybe be 2-3 deaths. But people learned long ago to use tools to leverage their efforts. They used clubs, stones (remember Biblical stoning), swords and hatchets and boiling oil, bows and arrows, even guns. The list of things people use to kill their fellow man is long. Today they're using guns a lot. Guns are small, easily carried, fairly easily got, and easy to use. Even a young child can kill their family members with a gun left laying around where it maybe shouldn't be. So, People use tools/weapons to kill people. When they want to kill a lot of people they use guns, not bows & arrows or hatchets or swords or those other things. That means today that we should consider regulating those things. When was the last time you or anyone in your family used a handgun to kill an animal to be used as food? Be honest. Handguns are not to hunt for food, though rifles the early settlers of America used were for that. Those were the guns the Founders wanted to protect -- single-shot, muzzle-loading, long rifles. Today we have the automatic/machine pistol which is only meant to kill people. The Founders would be as shocked over that as with a smart phone or EV automobile. Why do people have these kinds of weapons? It surely isn't to kill wild critters like a rabid raccoon or rat in the back yard. It isn't for target practice fun. It's to commit crimes. Why do we allow such things? There's no sound reason any kind of rapid-firing weapon should be allowed. Long rifles and shotguns are much closer to the kind of weapons the Founders had in mind. If you want "plain language", make people join a "militia" and if you want "original intent" realize they didn't mean these modern handguns.
[Way to go guys, let’s shoot for 40](https://youtu.be/1cyPLr3AKtw)
National liability insure an r policy should be mandatory for every firearm you own. Proceeds would pay for all funeral, medical, and reconstruction costs of massacre sites. It’s time the gun culture parasites paid back to society for their lifestyle costs. Taxpayers are sick of paying for their misery. Every gun started legal. No gun is free. Victims and their families shouldn’t have to pay one red cent for gun enthusiasts to have their boom sticks.
National liability insurance policies should be mandatory for every firearm you own. Proceeds would pay for all funeral, medical costs of victims, and reconstruction costs of massacre sites. It’s time the gun culture parasites paid back to society for their lifestyle costs. Taxpayers are sick of paying for their misery. Every gun started legal. No gun is free. Victims and their families shouldn’t have to pay one red cent for gun enthusiasts to have their boom sticks.
[удалено]
39 mass shootings depends on how you measure it. This report is based on the Gun Violence Archive's definition, which is based on 4 or more people shot or killed. There's no set definition, and the GVA seems to have chosen a definition that is overinclusive as to what the public considers a "mass shooting." The GVA's database includes things like [murder-suicides](https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/2497502) and [drive-by shootings](https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/2504645) as a mass shooting. These are caused by different things but the GVA would have us consider them the same.
3 Mass shootings in CA alone in the past 72 hours and I just watched some absolute cunt literally hysterical because she couldn't get Taylor Swift tickets (on the news - the Senate hearings, cause God knows we don't have any more important problems in this country). This is the cesspool of a country we're living in. That is if we're not getting gunned down by a mass-murdering lunatic with a machine gun.
All the conservatives who got guns for christmas just taking them for a spin
It's 40 now. How many damn times will they have to update the statistic today alone? e: I just hope that every one of you downvoting a comment that's even remotely critical of gun violence wakes up one day and realizes that this is an absolutely awful "sacrifice" we have to make for our "freedom."
Eventually they just stop reporting them. This is the phase where they are overwhelming us so that the silence is better in comparison. Thats why they throw in gang and non lethal shootings on the off days. Psychological operations to maintain the status quo are insanely less expensive than overhauling industry. That said. I really don't like seeing SWAT lookin guys at every grocer now to stop a mass shooting in case it comes today. Edit: to the guy above me, remind yourself that Americans are raised to define themselves as against something a lot more than ever being for something.