Oct 16, 2017 so obviously we're in the wake of another mass shooting and there's the typical gun restriction conversation gwanning on which will inevitably result in nothing so what would it take? i was listening to a podcast earlier and they were discussing how not even school shootings or mass vegas-like shootings are enough and someone suggested that it might take an NFL game to get shot up and for the team to potentially be shot up during the anthem or something for this discussion to be had properly. so i guess im asking, do you think that would work? and if not, would any level of tragedy be enough to shift gun culture as it stands rn
Oct 16, 2017 If 20 children being killed in an elementary school didn't change anything, I honestly don't know what will.
Oct 16, 2017 If a whole bunch of politicians or congressman got shot, guarantee you there would be gun control laws the next week
Oct 16, 2017 Dems controlling the White House & having a firm grip in congress. If Sandy Hook happens with Dems controlling the house, there would have been massive gun control reform.
Oct 16, 2017 Nothing. It'll never happen. And have fun trying to take the guns off some of those deep south rednecks with an arsenal large enough to take on a small country. And also at the time Australia did it our population wouldn't have been over 20m. It's a lot harder with a country that's over 320m. Not saying everyone's got a gun but f--- me it'd be impossible getting everyone to hand theirs in. And I dare say Aussies were never as passionate about guns as americans are. It's almost like a fetish to some of these people. So passionate about their "right to bear arms" Also with what triggered us to change our laws america has had like 1000 times. Nothings gonna change em
Oct 16, 2017 When leftist gun culture eclipses that of conservative gun culture. Otherwise, never. Mass shootings don't move gun control sentiments, let alone legislation. The conservatives only care about inner city gun violence that mainly affects black communities when you bring up the police's part in inequality in this country. It's just their go to what-about-ism. We don't even know if regulation is the answer tbh. There are more guns than people in this country already. We've scene prohibition fail and empower organized crime in the case of alcohol, weed, and various other substances. Of course, nobody is whipping up fire arms in their shed, but the supply already in existence is so massive that it's insane to think you can manage it from the top down. Plus having an unarmed populous is not the most appealing thing in the era of massive wealth consolidation and the increasingly plutocratic government resulting from it. Here's an article that suggests a solution to gun violence that ravages specific communities: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/reducing-gun-violence.html?smid=tw-share As for mass shootings, you see a lot of suggestions about addressing mental health, but I haven't seen any specific programs or policies suggested.
Oct 16, 2017 Well 5 got shot earlier this year at a baseball game and still nothing....... Guns will always be a part of American society. If you take guns away it would be equivalent to what happened in the 20's when America prohibited acohol
Oct 16, 2017 Less than 1,000 people have died from assault rifle style weapons pretty much every year. These are the targets of gun control that everyone rallies behind following mass shootings. That’s about 0.000001% of the population, that’s an incredibly small number considering there are 320 million people in the U.S.... It’s because of things like this that the laws will never change, especially given the culture of The U.S.. Everyone in this country had grown up with the second amendment, love it or hate it, most people just accept it 95% of the time until a tragedy comes up. The news overtakes it, such as the Vegas shooting no longer grabbing headlines because of Weinstein. The passion has died down and whatever bill is pushed to pass will get struck down, regardless of who’s in charge. Furthermore, even under a liberal presidency and congress nothing will be changed lest you have a civil war the likes of which will result in mass casualties on both sides. For these reasons, it will never fully change. Bump stocks might be taken, but you try and send out the order to retrieve all semi automatic assault rifles... Half the police probably won’t even listen, I sure as h--- wouldn’t lmao. It’d be suicide tbh.
Oct 16, 2017 Getting money out of politics would probably be the first step. As long as lobby groups such as the NRA own our politicians' nothing will be done on this issue. Second is better education and research on this issue. The CDC and other organizations need to be allowed to research this issue and come up with viable solutions. Lastly, we need people to quit it with the empty platitudes and pointless outrage. A majority of US citizens support gun regulation laws in some capacity yet the NRA (a group of 5 million I believe) is winning this battle. The biggest reason for this imo is we have citizens who only care about this issue when a tragedy happens while the NRA's job is to care about this every day.
Oct 16, 2017 The assault rifle ban movement is mostly due to its potential for harm. Every day civilians shouldn't be able to process weaponry that can cause mass death tolls and injuries. What benefits are there for owning such powerful weaponry? But this entire debate isn't centered around a ban on high power rifles. Simple things such as allowing more money in the CDC budget for gun violence research, allowing the ATF to use computers instead of paper files to record and track firearms, getting rid of nonsense loopholes like the gun show loophole, tighter restrictions, and background checks, etc. These are things most gun-owning Americans support but the NRA hard stance on gun control is preventing these common-sense fixes to gun control.
Oct 16, 2017 The counter argument is that the everyday civilian doesn’t murder with the assault rifles but enjoys shooting them at ranges or just owning them. They make fine home defense weapons too as most are going to be lighter and easier to arm than say a shotgun. There is no need to own them, yes. But the same could be said for pretty much any weapon unless you’re consistently in imminent danger. People see that line and stretch it to “they say that now, but 20 years from now they could say ‘who really needs any sort of semi-automatic gun, pistoles included’” the slippery slope argument. It’s hardly a debate anymore because society no longer cares until the next big shooting tho lol. As f----- up as that is, it is the news cycle society. My thoughts: Idc about the paper to online records tbh I’d be fine with that and I’d prefer people with mental illnesses not owning guns. I’m fine with gun shows tbh because it’s essentially like stadium food, you’re paying through the nose for it. I own two guns, one AR-15 and a Sig 40. Got both through a dealership.
Oct 16, 2017 I'm not against shooting ranges. If people want to go to shooting ranges and s---t really high powered weapons I'm all for it. But the shooting range should own and provide the weapons. The debate around assault rifles is exactly that: it's potential harm vs the rights of gun ownership. In this case, there's really no compelling case for the legalization of assault rifles. Most people do own their weapons without causing harm to others but that can't outweigh the harm that can potentially be and is perpetrated by those with ill will. People shouldn't be able to walk into a gun shop and get a weapon that can k--- and maim a bunch of people. The home invasion argument isn't a really good one because it's centered around fear. In fact, most arguments against gun control are centered around fear. Just in terms of efficacy wouldn't a shotgun or handgun be better for a short - mid-range conflict? I can't think of any situation where a civilian would be better off with an assault rifle other than hunting maybe but you can use a hunting rifle. We don't need this level of weaponry isn't a slippery slope argument in the way you describe it. 20 years ago we were saying this very exact thing. There is no reason for a civilian to own such a weapon. It's of no added benefit to society. Buying a gun at a show isn't like buying food at a concession stand for this simple fact. A concession stands owner isn't able to bypass laws set up by the FDA or other health organizations under the guise of "private concession food dealer". I'm not inherently against private dealer but they should have to follow the laws and regulation of the federal government and that of their state and local government.
Oct 16, 2017 @Modest killing it in this thread. By far the most frustrating thing about the gun control debate is that we can’t even properly research the issue because Republicans won’t allow the CDC to do so. I’ve met/talked to tons of Republicans who claim they don’t agree with that & think the CDC should be able to research gun violence. Thing is, simply saying that means nothing. If you’re continuing to vote & elect politicians who won’t allow the CDC to do so — you’re just contributing to the issue.
Oct 16, 2017 The most frustrating thing is people who can’t see thru the fear tactics utilized by the NRA and some in the Republican Party. If more people were able to sift through that bs it would be obvious that they’re only saying what they’re saying to line their pockets and protect the interest of their clients.
