That’s the usual, facile, explanation. I have 40+ guns. Am I 40x the danger to society? The nut with a .22 pistol is 1,000x as dangerous as me, because you just about can’t make me shoot you.
We had plenty of fucking guns back in the day, and this shit didn’t happen. (Hint: This boolshit really kicked off with Columbine.)
radicalized ideas around gun ownership
Not sure what you mean, but I’d bet you’re pointing in the right direction.
Look folks, I’m a LiberalGunNut™ and I’ve been looking at this for years. Bullshit like “fewer guns”, “mag cap bans” and the like are not useful or practical arguments. Here’s the nasty part; I don’t have any good ideas.
The 2A exists and the courts uphold it as an individual right. Those are facts, not open for argument. So WTF we do now?
I’m open to listen and debate. Unfortunately for most debaters, I can argue both sides because I know the issues well. I keep hoping to get more and better ideas.
I’ll throw one out; Red flag laws that allow the police to take your guns, temporarily, if you act nutty.
Sounds like a no-brainer? OTOH, we constantly see police abuse their power and murder people. “Shalafi71 has a shotgun and is talking some crazy shit!” Now the cops show up, shoot my pet pig, shoot me, shoot my wife, the usual. Stuns me that fellow libs distrust the cops on every single issue but this one.
Here’s another idea; Educate children on the realities of firearms. Bring home the seriousness (and horror) of pulling that trigger on another human being. At the worst, they’ll be able to identify unsafe people to run from. Liberals: “FUCK all that indoctrination!”
One 2013 Boston University-led study, for instance, found that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership at the household level, the state firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent.
I must ask, do you need 40 guns? Presumably you can defend yourself and /or engage in recreational hunting with just 1 or 2.
Researchers have found a clear link between gun ownership in the US and gun violence
Curbing gun ownership, particularly of assault weapons, is the only solution
There’s no middle ground here. There is nothing special about America other than the absurd amount of guns here. More guns, more deaths. Get rid of them. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. Better your hurt feelings than 18 dead Americans
… this time. The only thing “special” about this event was a few more dead than last time. There were 130 “mass shootings” in the first 3 months of this year alone. 48,830 gun deaths in 2021, and rising every year.
I know you weren’t saying this, but I think it’s important to state there’s a LOT more than 18 lives at stake here. I know these numbers won’t make any difference, but what people like this are really saying is that their “rights” are more important than the lives of all those people, and the many more to come.
LOL, no, of course not. But this question of “need” always hits me strange. I’m basically at my limit. 40 is all I’m capable of gunsmithing, learning, fucking around, whatever. Hell, 6 or 8 are still in pieces while I figure them out.
And what exactly are you imagining here? 8 or 9 are shotguns, and of those, most are single shot. 4 or 5 are in pieces (working on it!), most of the remainder are .22LR or .22WMR.
you can defend yourself and /or engage in recreational hunting
That’s not what the majority are for. And it’s none of your business what they are for. But if you must know, I like buying cheapo guns and refurbishing them, seeing what I can do. Gunsmithing tests the limits of my mechanical ability.
And yes, for self-defense, 6 or 8 will so. “That’s nuts!!!”
Pump 12-gauge for home defense. Best choice, IMHO, but YMMV.
Colt Government Model 1911 .45, sits on my desk, or in the drawer.
Rock Island Armory .45, nightstand.
Ruger LCP Max .380 for conceal carry, which I usually don’t.
M&P Shield .380 for conceal carry, if I’m wearing bigger clothes.
9mm Ruger, again, if it fits my clothing.
North American Arms .22 magnum. Hilariously tiny, fits in any pocket. Better than nothing I guess?
If you think on it, it’s kinda weird having to defend my hobbies and purchases. “What do you need 40 Steam games for?! You can only play one at a time!”
Curbing gun ownership, particularly of assault weapons, is the only solution
Now we come to the meat: How do you intend to make this happen? The 2A is real and the courts have now, and historically, interpreted it to mean the right of induvial ownership. Those two items are facts, not open to argument. I’m am open to discuss, but all I see are useless, ignorant laws that don’t curb violence, and worse, cost political capital for electing Democrats.
(LOL, sorry for the rant, but you seem open to discussion. Maybe we can find common ground, get ideas that work.)
What do you think of encouraging the pump action for hon defense? It can be most effective, and you can even encourage less lethal rounds that will take down a home invader. And it seemed like the most difficult to commit mass-murder.
Similarly, bolt action if you’re a hunter. Seems like the best tool for the job, and is more difficult to commit mass murder.
I’m personally, I don’t see how conceal carry should ever be a thing, so we’ll have to be on different sides of that. It’s just asking for innocent victims
The best answer we have for gun violence is the same as the best answer we have for most other societal issues. Establish a reasonable minimum acceptable quality of life and work to see that as many people as possible have or exceed it. It means giving more power to workers and unions, making healthcare and social services accessible, strengthening the social safety net, reforming the criminal justice system to seek the least punitive effective intervention, to interact equitably with all members of society, and to focus on rehabilitation. That list isn’t exhaustive but is already well beyond what there is the political will to achieve.
we’d just be having this argument about mass stabbings
When is the last time you’ve heard of a mass stabbing that killed 18 people? When is the last time someone committed mass stabbing from a distance? Sure, violence, injury, death, is still a problem, but would be a lesser one
Any solution that tries to replace the stuff you just mentioned with some kind of prohibition is doomed to fail. If all the guns in the world vanished tomorrow we’d just be having this argument about mass stabbings and school bombings instead.
I’m sorry, but “there’s no point in trying to solve the main problem, because if we did, we’d just resort to trying to solve the lesser problems next” really isn’t a good argument. It’s the entire point of progress!
What’s stopping mass stabbings and school bombings from occurring now? If they as effective or achievable as shooting people, presumably murderers would be using those options on par with shootings. If they are more difficult or less effective, then it seems like we should prefer the lesser evil, no?
It’s always the same playbook… Put out a trash argument, and then try to pivot to the next talking point when you get called out.
I’m interested in discussing the actual argument you made, not an imaginary one you’re making for me.
School bombings and mass stabbings are simply an infinitesimal problem compared to shootings. Surely there’s a reason for that, and the most obvious one is that there is some impediment to committing murder in those ways that is smaller than using a gun.
Mass stabbings aren’t common here but happen fairly frequently around the world. They aren’t common here because you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.
Bombings aren’t as common as school shootings because most school shooters don’t want to kill that indiscriminately. Also, while it’s not particularly difficult to create an effective bomb, getting ahold of a gun is probably easier.
But the point is that conditions in this country are driving people to violence and the actual argument is that we need to do something about violence, not guns.
Seriously, crimes require motive and opportunity. Clearly a prevalence of guns provide the opportunity murderers prefer, so why should we wholesale disregard that as a way to reduce mass violence when guns are the preferred vehicle?
To be clear, I empathize with the argument that mental health issues are also a factor, but that argument seems to be brought up exclusively as a reaction to gun control, and never with any serious follow through. So until the pro-gun crowd starts proposing some actual solutions that aren’t simply blame games rooted in vague racism (fatherless families blah blah blah) or christofascism (put Jesus back in our schools) I can’t take them seriously. If universal mental health care, dismantling of systematic racism, etc were issues supported by the pro-gun bloc, then it would be a different story.
Bombings aren’t as common as school shootings because most school shooters don’t want to kill that indiscriminately.
I’m gonna need a source on that one. The entire MO of these mass shootings (and indeed bombings) has been to cause as much death and injury as possible in a short timeframe, and the only targeting I’ve seen is toward the general building, such as a school or nightclub.
That’s the usual, facile, explanation. I have 40+ guns. Am I 40x the danger to society? The nut with a .22 pistol is 1,000x as dangerous as me, because you just about can’t make me shoot you.
I think “too many guns” is the slogan-y way of saying there are too many guns that are easy to get and too many people trying to get those easy guns. While inherently someone with an arsenal is more dangerous because they have more firepower, they aren’t more risky simply because of the extra firepower. Issues come from people who have some issue and easy access to a firearm making them more risky. Also, people’s risk changes given health, circumstances, etc. To illustrate with the absurd, take two people: one is highly stable and rational and the other is enraged. The first has a nuclear warhead, and the second has a dagger. The first is definitely more dangerous, but the second is more risky.
Educate children on the realities of firearms. Bring home the seriousness (and horror) of pulling that trigger on another human being.
I can get behind this. Like you said, guns are a fact of life in this country (not that that’s a great thing, but it is what it is), so I do think some level of education on what shooting means, as well as some level of firearms training with air or paintball guns is helpful. I think this would help stop some of the weird gun fetishization on the right.
Here’s the nasty part; I don’t have any good ideas.
I appreciate the honesty, but I don’t think there are any simple ideas to fully fix the problem (save for repealing the 2nd Amendment and taking all guns out of people’s hands). There’s huge support for universal background checks, and there’s the Assault Weapons Ban. Unfortunately, this gets back to the cultural issue. Weird gun fetishists will try to sink anything that even remotely makes purchasing a weapon even a hair more inconvenient.
At the end of the day, I think there’s the root and proximate causes for what we’re seeing. The root cause is a cultural problem with gun fetishes and individualism above all others. The proximate cause is…there are too many guns.
Saved you a click: too many fucking guns
I would add, radicalized ideas around gun ownership
That’s the usual, facile, explanation. I have 40+ guns. Am I 40x the danger to society? The nut with a .22 pistol is 1,000x as dangerous as me, because you just about can’t make me shoot you.
We had plenty of fucking guns back in the day, and this shit didn’t happen. (Hint: This boolshit really kicked off with Columbine.)
Not sure what you mean, but I’d bet you’re pointing in the right direction.
Look folks, I’m a LiberalGunNut™ and I’ve been looking at this for years. Bullshit like “fewer guns”, “mag cap bans” and the like are not useful or practical arguments. Here’s the nasty part; I don’t have any good ideas.
The 2A exists and the courts uphold it as an individual right. Those are facts, not open for argument. So WTF we do now?
I’m open to listen and debate. Unfortunately for most debaters, I can argue both sides because I know the issues well. I keep hoping to get more and better ideas.
I’ll throw one out; Red flag laws that allow the police to take your guns, temporarily, if you act nutty.
Sounds like a no-brainer? OTOH, we constantly see police abuse their power and murder people. “Shalafi71 has a shotgun and is talking some crazy shit!” Now the cops show up, shoot my pet pig, shoot me, shoot my wife, the usual. Stuns me that fellow libs distrust the cops on every single issue but this one.
Here’s another idea; Educate children on the realities of firearms. Bring home the seriousness (and horror) of pulling that trigger on another human being. At the worst, they’ll be able to identify unsafe people to run from. Liberals: “FUCK all that indoctrination!”
IDK, anyone got serviceable ideas for us?
Did you read the article? Yes!
I must ask, do you need 40 guns? Presumably you can defend yourself and /or engage in recreational hunting with just 1 or 2.
Curbing gun ownership, particularly of assault weapons, is the only solution
There’s no middle ground here. There is nothing special about America other than the absurd amount of guns here. More guns, more deaths. Get rid of them. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. Better your hurt feelings than 18 dead Americans
… this time. The only thing “special” about this event was a few more dead than last time. There were 130 “mass shootings” in the first 3 months of this year alone. 48,830 gun deaths in 2021, and rising every year.
I know you weren’t saying this, but I think it’s important to state there’s a LOT more than 18 lives at stake here. I know these numbers won’t make any difference, but what people like this are really saying is that their “rights” are more important than the lives of all those people, and the many more to come.
LOL, no, of course not. But this question of “need” always hits me strange. I’m basically at my limit. 40 is all I’m capable of gunsmithing, learning, fucking around, whatever. Hell, 6 or 8 are still in pieces while I figure them out.
And what exactly are you imagining here? 8 or 9 are shotguns, and of those, most are single shot. 4 or 5 are in pieces (working on it!), most of the remainder are .22LR or .22WMR.
That’s not what the majority are for. And it’s none of your business what they are for. But if you must know, I like buying cheapo guns and refurbishing them, seeing what I can do. Gunsmithing tests the limits of my mechanical ability.
And yes, for self-defense, 6 or 8 will so. “That’s nuts!!!”
If you think on it, it’s kinda weird having to defend my hobbies and purchases. “What do you need 40 Steam games for?! You can only play one at a time!”
Now we come to the meat: How do you intend to make this happen? The 2A is real and the courts have now, and historically, interpreted it to mean the right of induvial ownership. Those two items are facts, not open to argument. I’m am open to discuss, but all I see are useless, ignorant laws that don’t curb violence, and worse, cost political capital for electing Democrats.
(LOL, sorry for the rant, but you seem open to discussion. Maybe we can find common ground, get ideas that work.)
What do you think of encouraging the pump action for hon defense? It can be most effective, and you can even encourage less lethal rounds that will take down a home invader. And it seemed like the most difficult to commit mass-murder.
Similarly, bolt action if you’re a hunter. Seems like the best tool for the job, and is more difficult to commit mass murder.
I’m personally, I don’t see how conceal carry should ever be a thing, so we’ll have to be on different sides of that. It’s just asking for innocent victims
The best answer we have for gun violence is the same as the best answer we have for most other societal issues. Establish a reasonable minimum acceptable quality of life and work to see that as many people as possible have or exceed it. It means giving more power to workers and unions, making healthcare and social services accessible, strengthening the social safety net, reforming the criminal justice system to seek the least punitive effective intervention, to interact equitably with all members of society, and to focus on rehabilitation. That list isn’t exhaustive but is already well beyond what there is the political will to achieve.
When is the last time you’ve heard of a mass stabbing that killed 18 people? When is the last time someone committed mass stabbing from a distance? Sure, violence, injury, death, is still a problem, but would be a lesser one
Any solution that tries to replace the stuff you just mentioned with some kind of prohibition is doomed to fail. If all the guns in the world vanished tomorrow we’d just be having this argument about mass stabbings and school bombings instead.
I’m sorry, but “there’s no point in trying to solve the main problem, because if we did, we’d just resort to trying to solve the lesser problems next” really isn’t a good argument. It’s the entire point of progress!
What’s stopping mass stabbings and school bombings from occurring now? If they as effective or achievable as shooting people, presumably murderers would be using those options on par with shootings. If they are more difficult or less effective, then it seems like we should prefer the lesser evil, no?
I’m sorry, but “let’s ignore the real issues by treating the symptoms” doesn’t fly with me.
It’s always the same playbook… Put out a trash argument, and then try to pivot to the next talking point when you get called out.
I’m interested in discussing the actual argument you made, not an imaginary one you’re making for me.
School bombings and mass stabbings are simply an infinitesimal problem compared to shootings. Surely there’s a reason for that, and the most obvious one is that there is some impediment to committing murder in those ways that is smaller than using a gun.
Mass stabbings aren’t common here but happen fairly frequently around the world. They aren’t common here because you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.
Bombings aren’t as common as school shootings because most school shooters don’t want to kill that indiscriminately. Also, while it’s not particularly difficult to create an effective bomb, getting ahold of a gun is probably easier.
But the point is that conditions in this country are driving people to violence and the actual argument is that we need to do something about violence, not guns.
¿Por que no los dos?
Seriously, crimes require motive and opportunity. Clearly a prevalence of guns provide the opportunity murderers prefer, so why should we wholesale disregard that as a way to reduce mass violence when guns are the preferred vehicle?
To be clear, I empathize with the argument that mental health issues are also a factor, but that argument seems to be brought up exclusively as a reaction to gun control, and never with any serious follow through. So until the pro-gun crowd starts proposing some actual solutions that aren’t simply blame games rooted in vague racism (fatherless families blah blah blah) or christofascism (put Jesus back in our schools) I can’t take them seriously. If universal mental health care, dismantling of systematic racism, etc were issues supported by the pro-gun bloc, then it would be a different story.
I’m gonna need a source on that one. The entire MO of these mass shootings (and indeed bombings) has been to cause as much death and injury as possible in a short timeframe, and the only targeting I’ve seen is toward the general building, such as a school or nightclub.
I think “too many guns” is the slogan-y way of saying there are too many guns that are easy to get and too many people trying to get those easy guns. While inherently someone with an arsenal is more dangerous because they have more firepower, they aren’t more risky simply because of the extra firepower. Issues come from people who have some issue and easy access to a firearm making them more risky. Also, people’s risk changes given health, circumstances, etc. To illustrate with the absurd, take two people: one is highly stable and rational and the other is enraged. The first has a nuclear warhead, and the second has a dagger. The first is definitely more dangerous, but the second is more risky.
I can get behind this. Like you said, guns are a fact of life in this country (not that that’s a great thing, but it is what it is), so I do think some level of education on what shooting means, as well as some level of firearms training with air or paintball guns is helpful. I think this would help stop some of the weird gun fetishization on the right.
I appreciate the honesty, but I don’t think there are any simple ideas to fully fix the problem (save for repealing the 2nd Amendment and taking all guns out of people’s hands). There’s huge support for universal background checks, and there’s the Assault Weapons Ban. Unfortunately, this gets back to the cultural issue. Weird gun fetishists will try to sink anything that even remotely makes purchasing a weapon even a hair more inconvenient.
At the end of the day, I think there’s the root and proximate causes for what we’re seeing. The root cause is a cultural problem with gun fetishes and individualism above all others. The proximate cause is…there are too many guns.
The 2nd amendment exists and the court upheld it so nothing we can do now is absurd.
You know the Supreme Court also upheld slavery and racial segregation as well.
Really how does it feel to be on the wrong side of history clutching your guns?
And you have none. Thanks for your input.
There really is no help until you admit you are wrong. Gun worship is silly and needs to end.
There is no solution you want but trust me change is a coming.