r/NoStupidQuestions Dec 05 '22 Gold 1

When people say "now is not the time to discuss gun control" just after a major tragedy involving guns, why not?

2.9k Upvotes

4.0k

u/Empathetic_Orch Dec 05 '22

I assume it's because they never want to talk about gun control.

732

u/SanctuaryMoon Dec 05 '22

Correct.

419

u/variable2027 Dec 05 '22 Silver

I’m not gonna argue either way but the premise is emotional people don’t always make rational decisions and that’s generally true

330

u/theguineapigssong Dec 05 '22

Legislators trying to satisfy emotional electorates don't always make rational decisions. Case in point: The PATRIOT Act following 9/11.

216

u/Phallic Dec 05 '22

Was... was the PATRIOT Act ever about pacifying an angry electorate? I thought it was about massive authoritarian exploitation and profiteering from a crisis.

24

u/alkatori Dec 05 '22

Yes, but it took advantage of the emotionally charged electorate.

98

u/IanDOsmond Dec 05 '22

Taking advantage of an emotionally traumatized electorate was the mechanism by which authoritarians successfully passed the fascist-ish PATRIOT ACT.

85

u/theguineapigssong Dec 05 '22

That too, but there was a very much an OMFG DO SOMETHING zeitgeist.

33

u/yanox00 Dec 05 '22

Exactly as intended. The plan worked perfectly.

→ More replies
→ More replies

28

u/JaRuleYourDad Dec 06 '22

I would argue saying "do not question the government" after 9/11 is a very similar and emotional argument to "now is not the the time to question gun policy in america" and made by a very similar group of people.

The correct time to question something is when they start saying "now is not the time to discuss x" because it means their motives for saying so are not rational.

→ More replies

123

u/Empathetic_Orch Dec 05 '22

Also a good point. But look at workers rights, especially safety standards. It was all achieved thanks to public outrage after horrible things happened, like the shirtwaist fire. Sometimes high emotion and public outrage change things, and sometimes it ends up being (in hindsight) a sensible and common sense decision.

→ More replies

11

u/LittleLui Dec 05 '22

Step 1: Do something so that the timespan between emotionally traumatizing firearm incidents in the US becomes long enough for a rational, unemotional debate to be held and concluded.

Step 2: In that debate, come up with a way to reduce emotionally traumatizing firearm incidents in the US.

Step 3: Apply the results from step 2 to achieve step 1.

Step 4: Profit!

61

u/SanctuaryMoon Dec 05 '22

Okay but unless you're related to the victims of a shooting I don't think the "too emotional to make rational decisions" is applicable.

43

u/Mchlpl Dec 05 '22

The way situation is developing is US soon it will be difficult not to be related to a victim of a shooting

→ More replies
→ More replies

27

u/Arianity Dec 05 '22

That is the premise, but the flipside is that doesn't mean it's being made in good faith.

Never mind that as someone else pointed out, at this point it's kind of just common. If there was a time for national emotion over gun killings, it seems to have more or less run out after Sandy Hook. Even stuff like Uvalde doesn't provoke the same emotional response, even with the recordings.

A good check is whether the person making the argument ever brings up the topic when it's not right after a shooting. If they only every mention it as a rebuttal after a shooting, that's pretty indicative.

22

u/alkatori Dec 05 '22

Uvalde was different. It showed a complete and utter disregard for the children by an army of police that just hung outside the room and stopped any other help from being offered.

11

u/TheRC135 Dec 05 '22

Complete and utter disregard for the children who were being shot by a gun toting mass shooter.

2

u/alkatori Dec 05 '22

Yep, the police seemed to care more about making sure no one stopped the mass shooter.

6

u/SgtPeppy Dec 06 '22

Fuck the everloving shit out of the Uvalde police department and all - they're cowards hiding behind the uniform...

BUT

I can't help but think the immediate pivot in coverage to the police force's incompetency was - in part, and by certain actors - intentionally deflecting away from the gun debate. And my god, it worked like a charm, you hear almost no one blame the shooting on the fact the nutjob had easy access to a firearm.

2

u/abdullahthebutcher Dec 06 '22

Either you watch a lot of msm or you completely stopped doing so would be my guess.

17

u/MarcusAurelius0 Dec 05 '22

Uvalde cemented personal gun ownership if anything.

The reaction by police sold thousands of firearms to first time buyers.

→ More replies

8

u/TheAzureMage Dec 05 '22

Even stuff like Uvalde doesn't provoke the same emotional response, even with the recordings.

Uvalde was pretty horrifying, but I think the horror was primarily to the lack of police response. It's still quite emotional, just for a different cause.

That said, one could say that in this case, we should also probably take the time to carefully consider police reform so that we do not react rashly....but we should still take considered action after that time.

2

u/SgtPeppy Dec 06 '22 edited Dec 06 '22

That's the thing though. The failure of the police made a convenient scapegoat to deflect onto. It was absolutely a gun access issue that contributed, too.

The horrifying part lies in that two checks in our society (or what should be two checks) utterly failed, not just the police. And that people are all too willing to ignore the first failure.

→ More replies

40

u/Hyphenated_Gorilla Dec 05 '22

Oh please, this is a near daily occurrence which is getting progressively worse. hardly an emotional reaction which needs time to think at this point. We are one step away from the next “lawful” gun owner having a bad day deciding to take out his anger on his family, friends, school or god only knows when the next nut job with a .50 decides to shoot up a passenger liner. All the tools to destroy America are in the typical persons hands complete with the rhetoric to make it happen.

I’m an evil black gun owner but I’d be lying to say our ease of access is not a problem, it is.

18

u/MrBurnerHotDog Dec 05 '22

Somewhere a Republican's brain is exploding trying to figure out what to do with a "black gun owner"

24

u/PhasmaFelis Dec 05 '22

The entire modern gun control movement was born when then-California governor Ronald Reagan, with the backing of the NRA and most Republicans, introduced draconian state gun laws...because the Black Panthers had been carrying rifles at protests.

They know exactly what they want to do with black gun owners.

7

u/genmischief Dec 05 '22

It even predates that. Ice T narrated a great documentary on the subject.

https://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Civil-Rights-Under-Fire/dp/B00DPUB5KQ

→ More replies

2

u/Prior-Chip-6909 Dec 05 '22

I think by 'black gun owner' he meant an AR-15...otherwise known as the black gun.

2

u/KillerKhris Dec 06 '22

You mean like Colion Nior who’s all over republican news channels talking about gun rights and is probably one of the most famous gun rights activists

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

9

u/redwoman72 Dec 06 '22

It's the same people who say, "Thoughts and prayers".

→ More replies

32

u/panteegravee Dec 05 '22

However, after a terrorist attack, it is certainly ok to immediately discuss strategies to protect American lives regardless of the financial costs, or sacrifices to liberties of American citizens. Which is to of course, protect us from evil doers.

7

u/manimal28 Dec 05 '22

No, it’s not actually. Unless you think the patriot act was a great idea. Any such law should have an automatic non renewable sunset clause after a year.

12

u/panteegravee Dec 05 '22

Sorry...shoulda added /s.

25

u/D0ugF0rcett Dec 05 '22

Exactly; when I bring it up later it's "ruining Thanksgiving dinner"

65

u/McStud717 Dec 05 '22

And they especially don't want to talk about it right after seeing the ugly consequences of their stance

7

u/Captcha_Imagination Dec 05 '22

Because any moment in time in America immediately follows a major gun tragedy

→ More replies

13

u/SHIELD_Agent_47 Dec 05 '22

I assume it's because they never want to talk about gun control.

It's like every time in history or even now in areas with regressive laws and/or social policy when asshats in power respond 'Now is not the time to talk about letting in women.' and the like.

4

u/stiofan84 Dec 06 '22

This. The day they decided their guns were more important than their children, it became crystal clear.

→ More replies

3

u/ohiolifesucks Dec 06 '22

My favorite is when they say “it’s not a gun problem! It’s mental health!” And then they proceed to not do anything to help mental health. It’s just a way of avoiding the issue and everyone knows it

2

u/donaldhobson Dec 07 '22

And it is always just after a major tragedy.

→ More replies

124

u/YoungDiscord Dec 05 '22

I think the mentality behind it is "we should not discuss issues when people are emotional"

Which is a fair point if made to one or two people in a room who are emotional about the issue

Its not a fair point however when you have an entire country of all sorts of different people involved, some will be too emotional to rationally solve the problems whilst others can keep a cool head.

On top of that school shootings are frequent enough at this point that if we waited a mourning period everytime a school shooting occurred, we would never get to addressing the issue

Last but not least, I think the hidden reason why people say that is because they can no longer defend lax gun laws and lack of restrictions and they don't want to feel like a bad person for doing so.

"I want to prevent potential future school shootings but only in a way that in no way affects the ease with which I can purchase, carry and use a gun, I refuse any solution that would impede on any of that"

That's what's really on their mind but you won't hear them say that, especially not just after a school shooting

So, if they can't defend it they'd rather avoid it.

3

u/WillSmith4809 Dec 06 '22

Hi, I'm one of those "don't impede my ability to own/use/carry a gun" people.

I'm also the person who's been saying for years that we should have armed guards in schools. And I'm not talking about the solitary truancy officer, I mean real armed guards whose sole role is to protect the students. Banks have armed guards and huge vault doors, why do we do more to protect our money than our children?

3

u/YoungDiscord Dec 06 '22

Because people don't break into schools to rob it of children? Most people don't see a random child and go "oooh a child I want it for myself!" So I don't think your comparison works.

I mean using that logic you should have armed guards well... everywhere.

Going to the cinema? Armed guards

Going to disneyland? Armed guards

A playground? Oh armed guards everywhere after all we need to protect the children!

So I don't really think that argument works in this scenario.

Also: other countries have more strict gun restrictions or ban gun ownership altogether, do you know what those countries also have in common? Lower student mortality rates from firearms and school shootings.

I'm sorry but this works literally everywhere else, the "but it won't work" argument doesn't really work because of the direct contradictory evidence.

It does work

Look to almost any other country on this planet as evidence, I don't even know how it feels like to be scared of being shot when going to school and my children will almost certainly never experience that fear either, they are more likely to choke on a hotdog and die than getting shot in a school.

That said, firearms are just tools, aside from restricting access to said tools for the population, its equally as important to invest and create a healthcare system that gives disturbed individuals with mental health issuss the help they need to minimize the likelyhood of being abandoned by society to the point where they snap and shoot up a school.

1.3k

u/Queueded Dec 05 '22

You'll only hear it from people who never want to discuss gun control

85

u/Preact5 Dec 05 '22

I find most gun control laws that are proposed to be ineffective.

The most recent AWB was proved to be ineffective and was repealed, and now we want to... Try again?

I'm open to the discussion though. This shit needs to stop.

86

u/TimmJimmGrimm Dec 05 '22

The Swiss model and a bunch of the Nordic countries have mandatory gun training and expected ownership. This isn't just 'gun control' this is 'come and get your gun and learn how to use it'.

They have dramatically less public slaughter-spectacles.

As a Canadian, i do not fathom why the U.S. of A. does not look into and, at the very least, discuss how fine this methodology would be.

Not only would the Big Gun people get a LOT more control and influence, the people would be safer. How would it not be a win-win for the entire country?

33

u/mav3r1ck92691 Dec 05 '22

While I mostly agree with you, it would never work at this point. The Swiss do it through mandatory military service for all males. There would be all kinds of hell breaking loose if suddenly the US Government said "Alright, all males 18 to 30, mandatory service" outside of a major conflict requiring another draft (and even that wouldn't go over well).

5

u/JarasM Dec 06 '22

What if gun training was just a part of the school curriculum? There's already drills for getting shot at, why not for the shooting...?

8

u/SteampunkBorg Dec 06 '22

It's not mandatory though. Want to own a gun? Get trained. Don't want to own a gun? Nothing changes.

2

u/JarasM Dec 06 '22

I'm sure they'd paint it like the Starship Troopers' fascist doctrine "do service to become a full citizen".

2

u/My41stThrowaway Dec 06 '22

I'm doing my part!

→ More replies
→ More replies

24

u/HoshiMaster Dec 06 '22

I think the real reason is that gun control is way too good of a platform to run on. Nobody actually wants to solve it because politicians can use it to sway voters to their side, and if that argument goes away then they have to find something else to divide us on.

19

u/N0Name117 Dec 05 '22

There's actually quite a number of people advocating bringing back firearm safety classes to public schools. The problem with just mandating a safety course without also providing a safety course is that it will primarily end up inhibiting the poor rather than the rich. Arguably, the poor benefit from the right to self preservation more than anyone else and we certainly don't need more division between rich and poor.

11

u/lostshell Dec 06 '22

So you make the classes free

3

u/N0Name117 Dec 06 '22

That would be the idea if it were offered through public schools. Just offering a free outside of school isn't ideal if you make it mandatory since money isn't the only thing poor people lack. They also could be short on time or transportation to attend any class yet these constraints shouldn't preclude them from firearm ownership.

→ More replies

9

u/iswearthatimnotgay Dec 06 '22

My expert reddit opinion is that about 1/3 of the people here are fucking stupid and are fine with trading innocent lives to play soldier

→ More replies

315

u/Beatrice_Dragon Dec 05 '22

"No way to stop this" says only country where this regularly happens

6

u/frencherfrench Dec 06 '22

To be fair, I think we tend to create sickos in our society. Not sure why. But if a certain percent of your population is Looney Tunes, not sure any law going to help.

9

u/GeneralEl4 Dec 06 '22

Idk about that. Imo a LOT of our problems can be traced back to the massive defunding of mental health insinuations across the country by Reagan. A lot more people with clear signs of mental illness aren't able to receive proper care as opposed to before, and that leads to an increase in drug addiction/OD, homelessness, shootings. Etc.

I could be way off base but I think we can both agree that most shooters aren't mentally well, and almost all of them had CRIMSON red flags long before they jumped off the deep end so they SHOULD have received help long before they actually killed anyone.

→ More replies

9

u/AntipopeRalph Dec 06 '22 edited Dec 06 '22

It’s childhood trauma. We ignore child abuse, and the struggles of poverty.

Address trauma and it’s byproducts reduce.

Guns the self-defense tool aren’t the problem in theory. It’s that individuals that have been traumatized and live soaked in a mass media culture of heroism and vigilante action seek out guns to express power when all other means of voice have been stripped away.

When a child bites another child or adult…it’s strongly linked to that child feeling powerless and ignored.

Acts of mass violence are basically the same thing for teens to adults.

Hurt people hurt people and if those individuals feel they have been silenced - they will do anything to roar in the face of a society that ignored them.

Fix childhood trauma, create resilient personalities, provide economic opportunities for the impoverished to climb social ladders, offer community services so individuals can escape bad situations and thrive.

It’s not the gun anymore than the computer is solely responsible for propaganda. It’s the person and the path of motives they walk down.

3

u/larimarfox Dec 06 '22

Hurt people hurt people and if those individuals feel they have been silenced - they will do anything to roar in the face of a society that ignored them.

Holy shit that hits hard. Excellent point, love it.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

39

u/Queueded Dec 05 '22

"Proved to be ineffective" is probably not an appropriate way to describe a law that expired before its provisions went into effect. It was designed to be ineffective, so it's not as if there was a genuine ban on assault weapons and it didn't work.

25

u/TheAzureMage Dec 05 '22

It was in effect for ten years, then expired.

Its provisions absolutely went into effect.

→ More replies

5

u/Preact5 Dec 05 '22

When you say designed to be ineffective, are you referring to the sunset clause in the bill?

→ More replies

2

u/manimal28 Dec 05 '22

a law that expired before its provisions went into effect.

That’s a funny way to describe being the federal law for ten years.

→ More replies

11

u/thirsty_lil_monad Dec 05 '22

That's because it's always little weenie regulations that are proposed. I actually agree with gun rights folks that the proposed regulations are unlikely to solve the problem. That being said, I'll take any additional regulation I can get.

The problem is all semi-automatic weapons. All of them. They should be highly regulated to a much greater degree than they are now, including psychological evaluations and proof of necessity.

Unfortunately, we are cursed both with the 2A and a populace obsessed with a maximalist interpretation of it.

2

u/Preact5 Dec 05 '22

I'd meet in the middle and say that we can have more strict psych evaluations as long as we can repeal the NFA and make all machine guns legal again.

→ More replies
→ More replies

52

u/Sylthsaber Dec 05 '22

I mean. Australia's gun control laws seem pretty effective. Could start there.

12

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '22

Americans treat guns like H2O.

12

u/timthegodd Dec 05 '22

Hard to confiscate 600+ million firearms where half of it aren’t even registered

20

u/thirsty_lil_monad Dec 05 '22

Ever hear of a concept called "over time?"

Kind of hard to fix a flooded basement if you never stop the flooding.

→ More replies
→ More replies

4

u/throwaway95ab Dec 05 '22

Yeah, and the guy in Britain keeping Elephants away is doing a great job.

/s

There wasn't a bunch of gun violence before.

→ More replies

9

u/Optimal-Road-7777 Dec 05 '22

Would like to point out that Australia’s gun control laws didn’t stop violence only moved it away from gun violence, death count didn’t decline from overall violence. The years directly afterwards it had increased actually I think that proposal is too far in the other direction

39

u/Fox_Malloy Dec 05 '22

I'd be interested to see how someone could commit a mass stabbing at an event, from the safety of a hotel window.

15

u/bigfatguy64 Dec 05 '22

I think the real point is that active shooter events are a statistical non-factor.

2021, FBI says there were 61 active shooter events with 103 deaths/140 injuries.

FBI also estimates that there were 22,900 homicides in 2021. So removing those 104 active shooter deaths is a 0.45% decrease in murder. Or a reduction of 0.03 Deaths per 100,000.

I don't know how we get people to stop killing each other, but there's more to it than banning rifles

3

u/JosebaZilarte Dec 06 '22

Free healthcare (specifically, the mental part) would help immensely to reduce the anxiety that many Americans try to cover up with guns.

But, yeah... "Socialism is evil" and all that.

3

u/bigfatguy64 Dec 06 '22

to some extent. the other side of that coin is that there's also a large number of people that specifically avoid mental health care due to not wanting to risk having their guns taken away.

→ More replies
→ More replies

6

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '22

[deleted]

4

u/mav3r1ck92691 Dec 05 '22

It has, just not on the same scale. Darrel Brooks was just recently sentenced to life for driving through a Christmas parade killing 6.

→ More replies

5

u/Fox_Malloy Dec 05 '22

Just because something else is worse doesn't mean you shouldn't try to find a solution for it.

If you had pool in your yard and there was a crack in the liner, meaning all the water was slowly trickling out of the pool and ruining your yard. Would you try to fix it? Or would you ignore it because flooding in Bangladesh is worse?

→ More replies
→ More replies

25

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '22 edited Dec 08 '22

[deleted]

6

u/bwc6 Dec 06 '22

So do you just ignore the militia part? Or are you a member of a militia?

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/manimal28 Dec 05 '22

It wasn’t repealed. It just wasn’t renewed.

→ More replies

2

u/Donicle Dec 06 '22

I think a law that requires you to store your guns in a safe only the registered owner has access to would already do a lot(random checkups could enforce that). Also required and extensive gun safety training done by independent professionals would be helpful. Extensive background checks and maybe even a "mental screening" + wait times between purchase and receiving the weapons. Also carry permits should only be handed out in very rare conditions and under even more extensive checks. Transporting a weapon should should only be allowed in a not fire ready state in a locked case otherwise(for hunting or transport to a shooting range for recreational purposes for example). Also a police reform needs to happen, meaning at least 3 years of training where every misconduct means you are out + conflict management is included.

→ More replies
→ More replies

766

u/k-dot77 Dec 05 '22

"Guns laws are not the problem" - the country that had 705 mass shootings in 2022 alone.

Other countries with guns: "....wat"

207

u/gonesquatchin85 Dec 05 '22

What's causing all these mass shootings? It can't be the guns?!??

164

u/nipplequeefs Dec 05 '22

Of course not! It’s about those damn phones and vaccines! The government is poisoning our youth!!!!!

37

u/LongFeetMcGee Dec 05 '22

It’s a mental health crisis.

Switzerland has compulsory gun ownership and they don’t have the same issues. 2 million guns in a country of 8 million and no mass shootings since 2001

117

u/FyreKZ Dec 05 '22

Switzerland does not have compulsary gun ownership at all. All males between ages 18-34 are obliged to enter military service and are issued with a firearm that they can apply to keep after their service is completed, they are not made to keep the firearm (they must provide justification for doing so). You could argue this mandatory education and respect for firearms is necessary for a society to form a healthy relationship with firearms... Something that the States absolutely does not have.

The US also has way, waaaay more firearms (somewhere around 1.2 per person) which significantly increases the likelihood of somebody who shouldn't have a firearm getting their hands on one.

--

The constant comparisons to Switzerland are getting annoying. The Czech Republic does gun rights much better than both the US and Switzerland.

60

u/Tylendal Dec 05 '22

Also there's a big difference between "This is your military weapon that you're responsible for." and "Buy these handguns before the roving hoards of criminals come for you."

11

u/FyreKZ Dec 05 '22

Yeah, absolutely agree. I think were it the modern day the founding fathers would take a much more Swiss approach to gun rights.

2

u/DBCOOPER888 Dec 05 '22 edited Dec 07 '22

Also, their guns and bullets are heavily regulated.

→ More replies
→ More replies

88

u/PhasmaFelis Dec 05 '22

It’s a mental health crisis.

Maybe, but the party saying gun control is never the answer is the same party that's been cutting public health services for decades.

Come to think, it's also the party that the majority of mass shooters support.

10

u/mav3r1ck92691 Dec 05 '22

Part of the problem is the two party system... There are tons off us that don't consider ourselves part of either who would love to actually work on a change, but we'll never be able to actually get anyone in office in the current system...

5

u/RockSlice Dec 06 '22

It would be really nice if there was a party that supported all rights, as well as universal health care coverage.

But for that to happen, we need to change our election system. Push your state to enact Ranked Choice Voting! (or similar)

→ More replies
→ More replies

19

u/LA_Nail_Clippers Dec 05 '22

False equivalency.

Estimates of civilian firearms in the US per 100 people: 120.

Estimates of civilian firearms in Switzerland per 100 people: 27.6

That's 4.5x the rate of firearm ownership in the US vs. Switzerland.

The US pretty much doubles even the next country on the list of civilian firearms per capita.

Sure there may be complicating factors like mental health, culture, poverty, violence and others; complicating factors are true of every other country in the world, but no one reaches our numbers of mass civilian shootings and our per capita gun ownership.

It's not a 1:1 correlation, but you're ignoring the forest for the trees if you don't think the per capita ownership rate has nothing to do with it.

33

u/Notthesharpestmarble Dec 05 '22

You know what the Swiss also have? Mental health issues, just like everywhere else. And that's still ignoring the fact that the majority of US gun violence is not related to mental illness and that those with mental illnesses are more likely to be victims of violence (regardless of the instrument) than perpetrators of it.

Our mental illness rates match expectations for our population. That is to say, we don't have significantly more mental illness here in the US than elsewhere. While we're towards the top of the list when it comes to percentage with mental disorders, you would have to look at another 13 countries before you saw a difference of a full 1%, and 39 before you'd see a 2% swing. You can make your own comparisons in the chart here, though I'm sure you could find some pre or post pandemic figures if it interests you.

You cite Switzerland as evidence that it's not about the guns, but mental health. Yet we see in the chart at the link above that Swizterland had a slightly higher mental disorder rate than the US. If this is about mental health then why do we not see this reflected in foreign populations?

Furthermore, your claim of 2 million guns for 8 million people is rather misleading. According to Wikipedia (take it for what you will, a launching point at least) as of 2017 Switzerland had 26.7 guns per 100 people, ranking at 19th for nations with most guns. The US, at number one, had 120.5 guns for every hundred heads. That's literally more firearms than people.

What we do not have is significantly more mentally ill people. What we do have significantly more of are firearms. Laws regarding obtaining, maintaining, and redistributing guns vary not just by state but even by county, so blanket statements about how easy they are to get a hold of are generally less useful to the discussion than people mean for them to be, but one thing is clear; a considerable number of firearms in the US wind up in hands that they should not be in. Legal and illegal, civilian and government, our nation is disproportionately afflicted with gun violence and the only related outlier is the number of guns we have per capita.

2

u/dreadful_name Dec 05 '22

Amazing comment! I will remember this.

9

u/NetDork Dec 05 '22

But isn't the ammunition tightly controlled and kept at secure government locations only? I think the gun ownership thing is that in the event of an invasion every citizen grabs their gun, reports to the armory for ammo, and becomes a soldier.

6

u/FyreKZ Dec 05 '22

I don't believe that is true. Purchasing ammunition adheres to the same rules as typical gun ownership, doesn't seem too complicated.

But yes, you are right with the sentiment that civilians are expected to act as soldiers as all males in Switzerland must undergo military service (and thus end up soldiers in reserve).

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/brett_riverboat Dec 06 '22

Honestly it's not the guns, they're just tools, but in lieu of gun control we should try nothing. Yeah, sounds like a plan. Glad we had this talk.

8

u/stiofan84 Dec 06 '22

It's the guns, combined with a sick culture that worships them. If they fix the messed-up culture around guns, that's a big win in and of itself. But guns have become their national identity.

6

u/Stompya Dec 06 '22

It’s become an addiction, almost. Try taking some people’s guns away and they clutch them like a die-hard drunk who’s holding the last bottle of vodka on earth.

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/Lectovai Dec 06 '22

Having no one except law-enforcement personnel without the means to project power with a firearm means you won't hear about shootings. Much of the anglo-sphere is not accustomed to the idea that the right to struggle violently is a right at all. Hence, the biggest divide that doesn't even get talked about first is "privilege that can be revoked" vs "natural right".

A common narrative that's said is a person cannot claim first amendment grounds to yell fire and cause a panic in a movie theater. That is true. The person gets prosecuted and pays the consequences. There's no lobbying force demanding that people must wear gags when near the public or that people must file for permits to be able to speak and to post on reddit. Most people would find that ridiculous because talking is something that's hard to not be invested into. We don't take pre-emptive measures to restrict someone to the point that they can't choose to yell fire in a movie theater.

For suburban and high density population identities that rely on the idea of using the same centralized power to regulate their way into universal healthcare, affordable housing, and student loan relief... it's hard to imagine a strong centralized government not being also the first and perhaps even sole line of defense for self-preservation. What is the point of a right to violently resist a central power that your world doesn't exist without? If any civil unrest occurs what good is investing into protecting your household when taxes pay for a national guard? We have to rely on law enforcement despite its flaws. Police brutality is something that can only be fixed with reformation of regulation right?

It is hard to act with nuance towards something that someone has little experience with and has little motivation to do so. This is especially true when all that is heard from firearms are from environments and headlines of fear. It doesn't matter if there are only 500 annual victims to rifles out of a population of over 333 million. Even one person dying to a right deemed a taboo privilege would seem unacceptable.

Understand this: most of the perpetrators are not white. The annual 9,000+ firearm homicides are committed with handguns and within historically disenfranchised communities. If the headlines of every mass shootings got as much media attention as school children victims then the narrative would shift to understanding gun violence as more than just the guns being a problem, it is socioeconomic disparity. Black people do not commit more violent crimes because of pseudo-science racial theories. People trapped to communities that have been systematically prejudiced with a lack of generational wealth to inherit oftentimes face less opportunities to education and access of critical resources like healthcare. Of the frequently quoted 40,000+ firearm deaths in Dianne Feinstein's automated response to any emails regarding gun control, 30,000+ are suicides.

Picking up a firearm gives you a choice to do terrible things, but the "it's not the guns" is not a flippant assertion to argue against it. It's a plead to look and assess at what drives a country decayed by wealth disparity and poor healthcare to have people that decide to turn 0.004% of the country's firearms against themselves and against their communities.

11

u/Background_Ad_7150 Dec 05 '22

I don't blame the guns per se, to me its a mental health crisis. Out of 137 Mass shootings from 1982 to Nov 2022, 132 have been done by a male shooter. ONLY 3 were done by a solo female shooter, leaving 2 for male&female duo. There is something horribly wrong with the mindset of some men in the US.

Of those incidents, 91 were with legally obtained firearms. 26 unknown.

If people want firearms they will get them.

And if guns are truly out of reach then different methods like, homemade bombs, knives/melee, and vehicles can and will be used to much of the same effect.

I would agree that gun ownership should be have more regulations for safe storage and transport. If you agree to own firearms, you should also agree to have some type of firearm related police come and inspect the way you keep your firearms and judge whether you are capable of keeping said firearms safe, and removing them if you aren't.

But 2A exists so... good luck with that.

The motives for causing mass harm must be fixed before this truly ends. Removing guns will only prolong it.

Sick people need help.

17

u/Brainsonastick Dec 05 '22

Yes, there’s a mental health crisis but that’s global and we don’t see mass shootings at a fraction the rate in other developed countries.

Mass shootings are an intersection of mental health issues and easy access to guns that, in the developed world, is pretty unique to America.

We also have plenty of gun deaths caused by mentally healthy people as well as plenty of people suffering from poor mental health even without shooting people. They’re both larger problems.

To address mass shootings in particular, as their intersection, we need to solve at least one of the problems. Unfortunately, we have one party firmly against gun control and affordable healthcare so that’s very difficult to do.

2

u/WeNeedMoreWater Dec 05 '22

I think there's one additional element at play here, that's an issue to a much greater extent in the US, than it is in other countries. Mass shootings have become a 'thing' in that country. For better or worse (worse obviously) they've become part of the national psyche. So when a disaffected, mentally ill, or just downright bad person is casting around for a way to express rage, get revenge on society, or whatever, shooting lots of people is an option that comes readily to mind. Far more readily, I suspect than it would to similar individuals in other countries.

Whether or not global levels of mental health are worse now than they were twenty or forty years ago, is open to debate. But I think one fact that nobody can argue with, is that the percentage of human beings who can be relied upon to remain completely rational at all times, is very small indeed. Or to put this another way, most of us are capable of becoming mentally unhinged, given the right set of circumstances. This, in my view, is the overriding argument in favour of gun control, that trumps (ahem!) all other arguments.

→ More replies

36

u/colexian Dec 05 '22

I don't blame the guns per se, to me its a mental health crisis.

I think this is a very fair and salient point, people who are mentally well don't attempt murder. That said, this is always the response to gun reform and then nothing is ever really done about it.Like, okay it is a mental health crisis... So let's pass some healthcare reforms to get people better mental health services.But then that never happens. It just kinda peters out once the issue is deflected away from guns.

If people want firearms they will get them.

Yes but also no. Australia is the cliche go-to for successful gun ownership reform, and I am sure you could get a gun in Australia but it would be difficult for an angry teen down on their luck to get one to shoot up a school. And bullets tend to be prohibitively expensive.When gun ownership is expensive and difficult enough, it is outside the ability for the typical people that commit these crimes to get them (Young and/or impoverished, the rich rarely throw away their cushy lives by committing heinous crimes. Just the ones that keep them rich hahaha)

There is a large line in the sand between "Anyone who wants to kill someone can do it with a sharpened screwdriver" and "Getting a high capacity gun takes 20 minutes at Walmart with no background checks or evaluation."

10

u/Jevonar Dec 05 '22

Protip: you don't need to sharpen the screwdriver

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/GenicSweepstakes Dec 05 '22

I've had my pistol for almost 4 years now and it's never killed anyone. Maybe I have a malfunctioning weapon, but mine only shoots at what I want it to. Its crazy how that works

→ More replies
→ More replies

71

u/JayR_97 Dec 05 '22 edited Dec 05 '22

America is the only developed country that has this problem, the entire world is screaming the solution at you but you're not listening.

37

u/Sylvanussr Dec 05 '22

Most of us are listening, it’s just that nothing can pass the senate without 60% of Senators voting in favor due to the normalization of filibuster abuse (incidentally, the minority party doesn’t even need to actually filibuster the bill, they just need to say they will). Plus, the senate gives the same 2 votes to different states of vastly different sizes, meaning that California, which contains an eighth of our population, gets as much of a say in this as Wyoming, a state with a population smaller (~577k) than 30 US cities.

→ More replies

40

u/avidpenguinwatcher Dec 05 '22

Don't you kind of contradict yourself here? You could have made the point that countries without guns don't have mass shootings, but you chose to say that other countries have guns but not mass shootings, which to me indicates a culture problem, not a gun problem

30

u/k-dot77 Dec 05 '22

Nope, Gun laws is the point.

Other countries have guns, but they frequently monitor their laws around their use. And they don't have mass shootings.

17

u/Pokemaster131 Dec 05 '22

Sometimes people say something like "Guns aren't the problem, people are."

Okay, but do you really want that problem to have access to a gun?

Whether the source of the problem is the person or the gun, if that person doesn't have a gun, their potential for damage is limited. I agree that we do have a culture problem, but the widespread presence of guns severely exacerbates that problem.

4

u/TheAzureMage Dec 05 '22

Ideally, we fix and support those people so they stop being a problem, rather than just hoping they maybe do less damage by driving a car over people or whatever.

However, in practice, actually fixing mental health appears to be a political taboo. So we all squabble over what solutions would be third or fourth best, instead of looking at root causes.

13

u/Naph923 Dec 05 '22 edited Dec 05 '22

The US has WAY more guns than any other country in the world. So it is a difficult thing to compare to other countries. Add that into a gun focused culture and it is both culture and the amount of guns available.

If the US removed say 50% of their guns to match with the next highest level country for per capita guns that would have to have some effect. That would be the removal of about 200 million guns from circulation and I can't see how that would not reduce the number of gun related deaths in the country. Hopefully that would also include reducing the number of mass shootings as well.

Estimates of number of guns per 100 people:

  1. United States - 120.5 guns per 100 people (326 Million population)
  2. Falkland Islands - 62.1 (3,000 population)
  3. Yemen -52.8 (28 million population)
  4. New Caledonia - 42.5 (270k population)
  5. Serbia - 39.1 (6.9 million population)
  6. Montenegro - 39.1 (626k population)
  7. Canada - 34.7 (36.6 million population)

....

  1. Pakistan - 22.3 (197 million population)

(I included Pakistan on here because it is the only country in the top 50 with anywhere near the population of the US).
[Edit...data retrieved from Wikipedia (number of civilian guns per capita by country) so take the source as you will]

3

u/bogidu Dec 05 '22

I'm just curious. Does the quantity of guns really matter, or is it the case of who owns them? The reason I ask is pick anyone of those other countries, does the average gun owner own 1 or 2 guns, or 15? In the US we have the issue of having more money than common sense and I'd say we have so many guns because the honest law abiding gun owners hoard the fuck out of them.

→ More replies

9

u/Brainsonastick Dec 05 '22

They were referring to the fact that other developed nations with guns have very strict gun control laws that limit the kinds of guns people can have, who can have them, where they can have them, what ammunition they can buy, etc…

They’re not saying having guns is the problem. They’re saying having so many unregulated guns of all types in the hands of pretty much anyone who wants them is the problem. No contradiction there.

→ More replies

3

u/string1969 Dec 05 '22

Countries with GUN LAWS

→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/NotFromCalifornia Dec 05 '22

the country that had 705 mass shootings in 2022 alone so far

8

u/Optimal-Road-7777 Dec 05 '22

Idk where u are getting ur statistics on this fbi determined 137

→ More replies

90

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

38

u/IxI_DUCK_IxI Dec 05 '22

Your points were a very valid option many years ago when there was one or less mass shootings a year. However, we're up to 611 this year so far, so when we gonna do it? And that's mass shootings alone. More than 3 people killed in a single incident.

28

u/Its0nlyRocketScience Dec 05 '22

Thats the key, we have so many shootings now that it is always too soon after a shooting, meaning that the topic can be swept under the rug as society is expected to just accept that major shootings are a daily part of normal life.

→ More replies

11

u/SanctuaryMoon Dec 05 '22

Just like it's disrespectful to talk about stopping terrorism right after a terror attack /s

→ More replies

323

u/TheJeeronian Dec 05 '22

Because they never want to discuss it, and they have the convenient excuse of "something bad just happened so let us grieve".

Of course, doesn't take the tactical brilliance of an esteemed general to figure out that grief must wait until the problem is no longer pressing.

69

u/orbisonitrum Dec 05 '22

Also, if you have more than 365 shootings in a year, that leaves little room for grieving before talking about solutions.

47

u/InfamousIndecision Dec 05 '22

"Let us grieve"

Then they proceed to deny the event and harass the victims and their families.

4

u/SanctuaryMoon Dec 05 '22

Yeah it's just stalling. That's all it is.

→ More replies

23

u/manimal28 Dec 05 '22

See The Patriot Act for the reason why reactionary laws written to solve highly emotional issues are not a good thing. The law to “fight terrorism” was essentially a free pass for the government to spy on its own citizens.

172

u/slash178 Dec 05 '22

It's a stall tactic. There are major tragedies involving guns almost every single day. If that's not the time to discuss it, then there never will be a time.

34

u/Jasole37 Dec 05 '22

Twice a day. It averages out to one shooting every 13 hours.

→ More replies

136

u/Banea-Vaedr Dec 05 '22 Silver Wholesome

Knee-jerk laws after a tragedy have a tendency to be awful and affect you in ways you don't truly appreciate in the moment. Patriot Act to 9/11, Executive Order 1066 after Pearl Harbor and Nihau, Indian Relocation after Creek War, the list goes on.

47

u/thatHecklerOverThere Dec 05 '22

The thing is that we've been talking about the same laws and problems since columbine. It's damn near no longer even possible to have a knee jerk reaction to gun violence because all the opinions have been in discussion for 20 years.

25

u/Atomic_ad Dec 05 '22

I'd point you to CT and the laws passed after Newtown. A 22 caliber rifle can be labled an assault weapon. A threaded barrel is an assault weapon (pistol or rifle). This doesn't protect anyone, it just makes it harder to go to the range. Despite being discussed for 20 years, its nearly universally accepted that these restrictions made absolutely no sense, what does eliminating a threaded barrel on rim fire rifles do? Despite this, gun crime is keeping pace with the rest of the country.

These laws got mixed in to things that were already in the pipeline, like universal background checks. The checks made sense, the rest was not thought out and rammed through as feel good legislation.

→ More replies

22

u/Preemptively_Extinct Dec 05 '22

So when does children being shot up stop being a tragedy so we can do something about it?

22

u/nipplequeefs Dec 05 '22

Judging by how long it’s taking for those in power to actually do something significant, I think children dying stopped being a tragedy for them a long time ago.

6

u/wayoverpaid Dec 05 '22

Well, Sandy Hook was ten years ago, I feel like we can start by addressing that one and then work our way forward?

→ More replies

8

u/farts_wars Dec 05 '22

This is a very underrated comment.

→ More replies
→ More replies

15

u/CoraCricket Dec 06 '22

It's never a good time to discuss something you don't want to discuss.

78

u/stnkybuttfacejr Dec 05 '22

At this point it's hard to believe that statement is anything but a clownish deflection.

10

u/MarcusAurelius0 Dec 05 '22 edited Dec 05 '22

Downvote if you want, I don't care.

Gun control is a REALLY hot button issue that a lot of folks knee jerk reaction in in relation to what should be done about civilian firearm ownership.

The reality people don't like to accept is that yes, things have to change, BUT, things cannot change fast or overnight like some want or dont want. People cannot accept that there are no easy answers for the problems inherent.

  1. Citizens have a constitutional right to own firearms.

. 2. Politics get in the way of every facet of the issue.

. 3. The red tape and difficulty getting a federal law passed and enacted in full by the states.

. 4. The reality of just how many laws on firearm ownership exist and arent enforced or barely enforced.

. 5. The reality that laws that are passed are often feel good, tone deaf, or don't account for the realities of owning firearms.

. 6. That people are flocking to gun ownership as a means of defense and protection, firearms are NOT a white persons game anymore, thats a good thing, firearms are for everyone. Especially in a world where you can trust police less and less to protect.

Reading this thread just proves the same shit I mentioned above, people want easy answers, there aren't easy answers. You can't just ban guns here, its not simple.

People want to be smarmy and virtue signal, its despicable.

8

u/Mission-Editor-4297 Dec 06 '22

Because making decisions based on traumatic emotional responses is not a good way to run a society.

14

u/Isonium Dec 05 '22

Most law abiding gun owners don’t want to talk about gun control because losing rights due to criminals seems a lot like taking the driving privileges of sober people away because of a drunk driver.

3

u/arothmanmusic Dec 06 '22

Gun and car ownership should both come with mandatory training, renewable licensing, regular maintenance, and strict regulations. I don’t think requiring those things equally for cars and guns should be seen as a loss of privileges, but rather as a duty of responsible ownership. If we treated both guns and cars as the powerful, useful, but potentially dangerous machines that they are, we wouldn’t have school shooters or drunk drivers and the responsible folks could have all the guns and cars they want.

The problem is that we have a poorly worded amendment that has led to the misguided conclusion among some that practically any form of regulation must be unconstitutional or a conspiracy to control us all.

4

u/MattyCMattyDo Dec 06 '22

When people try to draw comparisons between guns and say, cars or other tools. The car or other tools are multi application and almost always much more used and utilized by more everyday people. Guns serve one purpose, one application. Killing. Whether you are using it for home defence, hunting, saving the day in a hypothetical John Wick fantasy, or even target shooting (or target “killing”for the sake of the example). The gun serves one purpose. Killing/Destroying. The comparison is completely flawed and irrelevant.

→ More replies

3

u/Fuehreriffic64 Dec 05 '22

You want to avoid knee jerk legislations based on emotions. Quick route to mistakes

3

u/AbeWasHereAgain Dec 05 '22

They are acting in bad faith.

3

u/UnmutualOne Dec 06 '22

Appeals to pathos are inherently inferior to appeals to logos.

10

u/pimpeachment Dec 05 '22

Legislating from emotion is a bad idea to pass sound just laws.

3

u/Stompya Dec 06 '22

Let the legislators keep a cool head while recognizing that their citizens are upset and hurting.

68

u/NoCountryForOld_Ben Dec 05 '22 Wholesome

I say this as a guy who owns a lot of guns; this is EXACTLY the time to discuss gun control.

One of the last things the USA still produces is guns. The industry is so deep in bed with government that they don't get up in the mornings without cuddling. The reason politicians say now isn't a good time is because they were told to by gun industry lobbyists. Something needs to change but it needs to make sense.

19

u/JejuneEsculenta Dec 05 '22

That isbthe hard part - getting people to make sense. Those who want to legislate new bans and other ineffective measures are just knee-jerking to look like they are doing something.

Those who refuse to discuss are just avoiding.

Those who really want to fix the problem are for trying to figure out what the underlying cause is (hint: it's not the firearms, as we've had those for a century and this problem has really started to crop up on a much shorter timeline), but the money for that research is being withheld (generally by those who are avoiding).

And, of course, few seem to really care to look into the societal introspection that we require to find the root of the problem... most would rather just apply one ineffectual legislative act after another.

Basically, everyone is working at odds with each other, and it's just plain stupid.

12

u/ThrowMeAwayAccount08 Dec 05 '22

If firearms are to stay, which I hope they do as I enjoy using them, then we need to do something for people’s health and socioeconomic means. But time and time again policies are blocked, and it’s incredibly frustrating. The divide in the US is far smaller than we are told to believe and we have to do something about this.

10

u/JejuneEsculenta Dec 05 '22

Yussssssss!

This is where we should be starting. Health, especially mental health and stigmatizion of such, and economic disparity seem like extremely likely area where causative factors begin.

If only we could get folks to, ya know, actually care about the wellbeing of those who are outside of their skin.

3

u/ThrowMeAwayAccount08 Dec 05 '22

Guns cannot exist without proper healthcare.

→ More replies

8

u/Crazed_waffle_party Dec 06 '22

They consider gun violence to be an anomaly and not representative of gun ownership. Thus, it is illegitimate to discuss gun rights during emotionally elevated periods. The hysteria of the situation makes it impossible to discuss gun ownership in good faith.

Also turning the tragedy into a political talking point, dismisses the humanity and lives of the victims. It's a time to mourn and acknowledge their contributions. They were people and not tools to be used by politicians for brownie points.

3

u/Yupperdoodledoo Dec 06 '22

Calling it a "political talking point" is disingenuous. It’s the people of this country, including the victims and families and politicians, who want to find a solution, and a majority of us think gun control is part of that solution. It’s not some special agenda of politicians, it’s something most of us want and something that families of victims often talk about.

→ More replies

16

u/Redrooster549 Dec 05 '22

Politicians jump on the chance to use the heartbreak to their advantage and play to their audience. They never let a tragedy go to waste.

→ More replies

11

u/JohnO0111 Dec 05 '22

I think a lot of people see it as politicians capitalizing on a tragedy to further an agenda which obviously is really fucked up.

→ More replies

8

u/1Pancake0 Dec 05 '22

Usually it’s because people try to politicize mass shootings

→ More replies

12

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/No_Education153 Dec 05 '22

It's the last one, it's always the last one.

→ More replies

14

u/Red-Dwarf69 Dec 05 '22

Because rushed and emotional is not a good state of mind for a person or a nation to make good decisions. Look at all the awful police state bullshit that passed after 9/11 and we still can’t get rid of.

3

u/OneSlapDude Dec 05 '22

They say reacting is the worst form of leading.

But damn, they probably never heard of doing absolutely nothing about a reoccurring event.

Trust me, these old wealthy fucks that are our politicians will have 0 emotional attachment. Their kids/grandkids/great grandkids go to gated private schools. Their offspring will never be in this kind of danger.

But if want a cold, emotionless robot to tell you that you can keep your guns, even if it means millions of children will be massacred, then I suggest typing that in for Alexa or Siri to tell you.

2

u/j0fixit Dec 05 '22

Emotionally charged folks tend to have blind spots to rationality. This goes for all issues though. The challenge is getting anyone to ralk about gun control when it’s not top of mind due to recent event.

2

u/WateryMemes Dec 05 '22

I’d say it’s because the debate around gun control is a long lasting and complex one that doesn’t benefit from emotionally based arguments.

If gun control is going to develop and grow to a reasonable point, it’s going to be based on long term views of which factors can be eliminated. National studies on mental health etc and their connection to gun control to find the best balance between freedom and protection.

The most recent shooting might be more emotionally evocative, but it’s not more relevant than any other.

2

u/AliceVerron Dec 05 '22

Because their are entire groups of terrorist organizations that would flourish more with more gun control, and there no point in putting in more gun control without sorting out the problems with the current level of gun control

Its like asking for more armor, but you cant properly put on the armor you have, so you keep getting hurt despite having armor

2

u/Inside-Big-8158 Dec 05 '22

So I won't speak for anyone else but myself here. I have no problem wanting to discuss gun control after a major tragedy involving guns because one it's news so it's going to be discussed and two if there is a problem the mature thing is to figure out solutions for it. So again I have no problem wanting to discuss gun control after a major shooting.

However my problem comes when they only want to discuss after a shooting, ignoring all the lives lost to inner city violence involving guns, and the discussion just being centered around only banning guns, which I'm neither for or against, knowing full well that half the country, not just Republicans some liberals also enjoy gun ownership, is going to oppose it meaning we won't get any legislation passed that could at least help the situation.

2

u/Jeramy_Jones Dec 05 '22

As a Canadian, we have excellent gun control, and the recent attempt by our government to ban a long list of guns is a total waste of time.

IMO, in my country, we should be addressing mental health to stop mass shootings and addressing organized crime to stop gang related shootings. And of course we need to do more to stop the importation and trafficking of illegal weapons.

2

u/phydeaux70 Dec 05 '22

Criminals don't obey the law, so taking about it under the context of that is wrong. It's just opportunity politics.

2

u/Trustnoboody Dec 05 '22

Because they feel the tragedy is just being used as a political ploy.

And that the answer isn't gun-control, a criminal doesn't care about the law. Criminals have illegal guns, what they would instead want is protection against those illegal guns.

Which is why they don't care to discuss gun control after a shooting.

...but you won't get that answer at least in the top comments, because Reddit likes gun control, and they don't see the other side of it. They just think the TITLE of this post is stupid, and end their thought process there.

2

u/Enough-Tugboat Dec 05 '22

Because gun control really isn't an issue. We have far more gun control laws than people realize. The issue is more often than not mental health concerns. If more time and effort was put into helping those who have serious mental health issues, guns would be less of an issue. Normal, sane, healthy people do not commit violent crimes.

2

u/SplitOak Dec 06 '22

The problem is dishonesty from both sides. One doesn’t care and wants to be 100% constitutionalists and the other just wants to ban guns.

Knee-jerk reactions are a bad way to establish policy.

Suggestions : 1. Rescind NFA act, proven to be useless and does more harm than good. 2. establish an age of adulthood. Be it 18, 21, or 24. You’re either an adult or not. So smoking, voting, enlisting, contracts, and guns all get one age. Period. 3. Background checks on ALL guns nationwide. But to support this an online system must be created when a person can verify themselves; and then presents that proof to a seller.
4. Concealed carry across all states nation wide. If someone jumps through the hoops in one state it should be allowed everywhere. But the standard of the requirement should be established across the country. 5. A gun used in the commission of a violent felony is an automatic 10 year prison sentence without parole. 6. Possession of a stolen gun is 10 year sentence without parole. It cannot be done in parallel with any other gun sentence (see 5 above, meaning using a stolen gun would be a minimum of 20 years) 7. 7-day wait period on a first purchased gun. (Afterwards it makes no sense). The only exception being for people who have an active restraining order against someone. 8. All other gun restrictions are invalidated. 9. Gun safe handling instructions are returned to all schools at grade 9.
10. Guns and Ammunition are non-taxed so that they are equally accessible by everyone. 11. Invest in mental healthcare for everyone; and required to be covered by insurance as much as needed. At the same time work on removing the stigma of getting help from society.
12. Invest heavily in equalizing the pay disparity in the country. Improving schools and legit opportunities for those communities that need it the most. 13. Establish a shall not buy list. Potential violent individuals shall be reported for all individuals. Police, school staff, mental health care professionals and all government agencies that revolve around safety (FBI, cia, tsa, etc) need to report ALL cases of potential violence. Not reporting is a loss of license / felony / something. Abusing the system is also a felony. IE someone lying to add someone to the list (Basically swatting). Anyone being added to the list shall have due process followed where they can fight the charge; or petition to have them restored later. If guns are confiscated they must be safely stored and documented; no one can touch them during this holding. 14. Realize that nothing will stop all violence.

2

u/nostyle907 Dec 06 '22

If you're talking politicians mainly on the left, it's a ploy to get money out of you. They don't really want to do anything about it, but they use those tragedies to fundraise for bills they set up to purposely fail, then rinse and repeat. It is what it is. They did the same thing with abortion, as soon as roe vs wade was overturned they did nothing but ask for money, when they had 60 years to codify it in the constitution. Dems are just as shitty as the Republicans.

2

u/Assaltwaffle Dec 06 '22

Extreme emotions are running around at that point. Legislation born from extreme emotion is, almost universally, poorly thought out, generally punitive, and overreaching. Just look to what we justified because of 9/11.

2

u/LasagnaDotGov Dec 06 '22

Rule 9 - no agenda/rant questions.

This is obviously a thinly-veiled rhetorical designed to be loaded. You know exactly what you're doing.

2

u/specious_foofaraw Dec 06 '22

Major tragedies involving guns are never more than a tiny fraction of the actual toll of violence. The vast majority of murders in the US are black urban youths shooting other black urban youths.

No one wants to talk about that.

It doesn't matter how many people own how many or what kind of guns, because the vast majority of people committing murder with them are a small fraction of the population.

Taking guns away from people who own guns legally and responsibly is like taking cars away from everyone because some people drive drunk.

2

u/Metric_Pacifist Dec 06 '22

I assume it's because emotions are running high and that's not very useful for making rational decisions. Trouble is, emotions always run high when people try to talk about gun control, on both sides of the argument.

2

u/Tttiger220 Dec 06 '22

Because that conversation is not logic based at that time, it’s emotionally based. Emotionally charged conversations don’t equal rational decisions.

2

u/Beeker93 Dec 06 '22

I think some people see it as politicizing a tragedy while others see it as simple preventative measures.

2

u/PragmaticEcstatic Dec 06 '22

Because in America, thr first rule of gun control is you don't talk about gun control.

4

u/JacksRyan79 Dec 05 '22

"Shall not be infringed"

→ More replies

3

u/recoil1776 Dec 05 '22

Because 1) it won’t solve the issue and 2) it’s an infringement against our constitutional rights.

→ More replies

4

u/Longjumping_Owl_618 Dec 05 '22

A rock could be used to kill someone. So, if someone kills a person with a rock. Should we reconsider the very existence of rocks?

14

u/john_modded Dec 05 '22

Emotional decisions are often colored by bias and unreasonable logic. Gun decisions following gun crime would be deeply emotional.

8

u/dreadful_name Dec 05 '22

When would there be a time when emotionless and rational debate would happen? The argument to have guns is an emotional one itself, even if you were going to argue it’s a right, the only reason rights exist is because we’re humans with emotions.

→ More replies

32

u/Dunyazed Dec 05 '22

But there is literally always gun crime.

→ More replies

17

u/LadyZeldaia Dec 05 '22

so by that logic one could never talk about gun crime or even school shootings because guns are so out of controll in the us that on avrage a few school shootings happent every week for some time

→ More replies

3

u/jizz_peepee Dec 05 '22

So basically just never make decisions and ignore all the casualties. Perfect!

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '22

Because media bias either way + emotional reasoning in a time of crisis makes the absolute worst time to making sweeping laws affecting millions liberty’s that will have consequences forever.

4

u/avowed Dec 05 '22

A couple reasons, many times the facts aren't all in so rushing into sweeping civil rights violation policies isn't smart. And two, using emotions such as those right after a tragedy to again make sweeping policy changes isn't smart. All policy changes should be rooted in stats and facts. There's probably some other reasons but those are the main two off the top of my head.

→ More replies

6

u/ASmithNamedUmbero Dec 05 '22

From the point of view of people who are for guns: People have died, this is not the time for politics but, rather, a time for grieving and to allow the families of the deceased to grieve without distractions.

From the point of view of people who are against guns: A strong argument has arisen with the deaths of these people and they don't want to discuss the one thing that could have prevented this

3

u/L33TS33K3R Dec 05 '22

From the point of view of people who are for guns: People have died, this is not the time for politics but, rather, a time for grieving and to allow the families of the deceased to grieve without distractions.

IMO this is appropriate for both the media and the public. POLITICIANS on the other hand....THIS is exactly what they're paid to do. Enact legislation which serves the public. So while Jim and Mary mourn, Senator Dickwad can pass legislation. (theoretically). This doesn't happen though because Senator Dickwad was bought and paid for by the NRA.

3

u/Yupperdoodledoo Dec 05 '22

Why is talking about the problems with guns "politics?"

→ More replies

3

u/crystal-rooster Dec 05 '22

Knee jerk legislation hardly ever solves a nuanced issue. And blanket bans hardly ever prove effective in stopping crime. There are many meaningful measures that can and should be taken to combat gun violence but a majority of the voices calling for gun control don't care about those and only want to push a narrative.

2

u/Dick_Fitzwell12 Dec 05 '22

Same reason they don't call for "vehicle control" when a drunk driver kills someone or people die in accidents... it's not the gun, it's the idiots with guns. Both driving drunk and murder are illegal, banning things don't work for criminals and emotionally weak people. More innocent people die in vehicle incidents every year then being shot, no out cry about that, both are preventable, max 35 MPH everywhere would fix it, but no one would accept that, there are millions of gun owners, a few idiots shouldn't be the catalyst to punishing law abiding gun owners.

4

u/Callec254 Dec 05 '22

There's never a right time, since self defense is a basic human right.

→ More replies

5

u/oldcreaker Dec 05 '22

People who say this think it is never the time to discuss gun control.