Submitted by midmodmad t3_112e5ih in Connecticut
x6tance t1_j8lrfaq wrote
I'll get down voted to oblivion by the gun nuts, but, after living in the US and abroad, I can say that the only way to prevent random mass shootings in what should be safe places such as schools, colleges, and movie theaters is a repeal of the 2nd amendment and a buyback probation of existing guns going over a generation or two. Right now, the laws are so divided between the states, it just goes to show how some issues being solved at the state level is stupid. But of course, Americans would revolt on such an idea to prevent deaths of their fellow Americans as long as their gun owning liberties aren't infringed. So much for the liberty of life of others.
If this is a mental health crisis, why don't mass shooting (when adjusted per capita) happen routinely in Japan or the UK? Did they solve their mental health issues? Is their medical system just that much superior to ours? Or are we just a shit country that can't solve mental health? Makes you wonder...it's not like these countries have zero crime there, either.
Having guns to defend against tyranny is another popular but dumb take. If America goes into a Civil War, there's no way a neighborhood of armed civilians is putting an Abrams tank out of commission or shooting down a hellfire missile from a drone. Whoever has vast control of the military and their armament, wins...and that's probably the government which is (partially) funded by the same gun owning civilians via taxes. Absolutely hilarious that they arm their own government with superior technology while holding disdain for it.
ShamusTheClown t1_j8ml6ss wrote
I firmly disagree with your claim that state laws don't work.
Here in the northeast, we have stronger gun laws, and we have way fewer firearm deaths per capita, and fewer mass shootings. CT has some of the strictest, and we haven't had a mass tragedy since they were implemented after Sandy Hook.
What gives us the right, to impose our values onto other states 100s to 1000s of miles away?
They're perfectly capable of fixing this problem whenever they want deomcratically... Clearly they don't want to.
You should plan accordingly, and not live there.
x6tance t1_j8mmm79 wrote
They're better than nothing but deaths from shooting still occur in states with high level of gun control. The problem is that you can purchase guns in more lenient states, drive across the state borders, and commit your shootings. State laws won't stop that unless they add customs or something at the state borders
Just_Jer t1_j8msxgy wrote
Illinois, New York, and California have some of the strictest gun laws. I defy you to spend one night walking alone in Chicago, New York, or Los Angeles...it seems criminals still have all their guns, funny...
Taurothar t1_j8nc83z wrote
Those places are all adjacent to ones with very lax control, so it's easy to get a gun to bring there from a neighbor state.
Just_Jer t1_j8ncjfz wrote
that's what these states keep claiming but I've yet to see anything but anecdotal evidence to support that claim
Taurothar t1_j8ncyc3 wrote
Just_Jer t1_j8ndbs1 wrote
I get what you're trying to prove but the percentages seem laughably low compared to the purchased in Illinois percentage...
Taurothar t1_j8ngul1 wrote
How is more than half laughably low?
Just_Jer t1_j8nhakh wrote
I'm saying 49.8 from Illinois vs the highest at 16.7 from Indiana.
WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8sd6nq wrote
Indiana should be a war zone with all those “lax gun laws” but it’s not, Chicago is.
Taurothar t1_j8sfxj4 wrote
Because, shockingly, crime is where people are. Chicago Metro area has a population 1.5x that of the entire state of Indiana in roughly a quarter of the area. Population density often coincides with increased crime rates everywhere.
WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8sirve wrote
And who commits these crimes?
Taurothar t1_j8smvsv wrote
People with guns? I don't know what you're trying to get at. If you're trying to say minorities or Democrats, you're also drawing correlation without causation.
WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8sndu6 wrote
Glad you said “people” with guns and not just “because of guns”. The correct answer is “criminals” Why did you bring up minorities or democrats?
Taurothar t1_j8sozss wrote
> Why did you bring up minorities or democrats?
This isn't the "gotcha" you think it is. It's usually the line I get when talking about urban crime with gun nuts. Saying "criminals commit crime" is also pretty self evident, so I didn't think you'd be that stupid as to want to spell that out as if it was an argument.
And yes, people with guns shoot people. People without guns, can't shoot people. Reducing those guns in quantity or effectiveness reduces the number of people who are shot.
But you know what the most effective means to reduce crime is? Improving quality of life through raising incomes, revitalizing neighborhoods, providing social resources, and developing communities where people don't need to resort to crime to survive.
If we spent half of what we do on the military on those types of goals, we wouldn't be seeing the kinds of shooting sprees that lead to these calls to ban guns. Too bad most gun nuts are also Republican who vote against using money this way though.
WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8sqa7z wrote
>But you know what the most effective means to reduce crime is? Improving quality of life through raising incomes, revitalizing neighborhoods, providing social resources, and developing communities where people don't need to resort to crime to survive.
So YOU are saying it’s minorities / low income communities. Got it.
Most people with common sense know that simply banning an item will not prevent any further tragedies.
Are you going to give your car up to the government if they ban cars because of drunk drivers?
You could ban every gun in existence and Chicago will still have a high murder rate. Gotta deal with the people, not the objects.
Also, why does this keep happening Are democratic appointed DA’s incapable of upholding the law?
WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8sd344 wrote
Then why don’t those adjacent places have the same level of violence as nyc LA or Philly?
BadDogEDN t1_j8mtxcd wrote
And I can walk into home depot buy parts, and can make a gun in my basement, the point is, criminals, will always be criminals, laws only stop law abiding people, criminals will find a way.
And for a less nuanced approach, come and take them, this is not a thing people will roll over for. This is the last straw for freedom, its hard to enforce unjust laws if you would have to risk being shot over them.
x6tance t1_j8owvf0 wrote
Seriously? Guns are the last straw for freedom? A tool that serves no other purpose than to kill? Yikes....what a shitty country to live in if this is what we have to resort to
BadDogEDN t1_j8p21zp wrote
be mad all you want, but if you try to take my rights away, you will be shot
WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8sd9ox wrote
How did we defeat the British? The Nazis? With hugs and kisses?
AGK47_Returns t1_j8xh23l wrote
No, trust me, they're not gay, but they are Swedish, and they have a fantasy where they're forced to dress in maid clothes and serve their 1940's German overlords in their newly built castles in what today would be Belarus and every now and then they dress in heels and put on a stage performance and their overlords laugh and smile and eventually become peaceful through the power of love.
I shamelessly paraphrased the first half from an internet copypasta
iCUman t1_j8n3ewb wrote
The main problem with this position is that it ignores the reality that many of our problems with criminals obtaining firearms derives from the ease in which they can obtain them legally in other states.
NYAG did an investigation of crime guns over a 5yr period and found that:
>...for guns with a recorded state of purchase (6,799), 75% of crime guns originated out-of-state in 2015, more than double the national average (29%) of out-of-state sources of crime guns. The difference for low time-to-crime guns is even starker: nationwide, only 17% of guns recovered within three years of purchase originated out-of-state, compared to 76% of these guns in New York in 2015.
Ok_Couple_1667 t1_j8mor4e wrote
You sound like somebody who just wants to bend over and take it (or you depend and love the government as it is) I love it when somebody who has no experience in service (training in military )has such sewage come out of their mouth. In training we are taught how small arms can bring down armies if united It was a bunch of Ukrainian on ATVs that brought down a column of Russian tanks Step away from the government tit put down your Doobie, and wake up and don’t tell everybody else to give up to tyranny just because you believe it’s useless you lazy do nothing government loving, trusting piece of poop
x6tance t1_j8mqzme wrote
ATVs equipped with ATGM, that is. It's not some .308 rounds taking these tanks down. Plus, it's mostly Javelins and NLAW destroying the T-90 from what I understand. Both of which are provided by foreign countries to Ukraine. And neither of which is in mass circulation to the general public of the United States.
I don't love the government but I also don't hold massive disdain for it either where I feel the need to be heavily armed to feel safe. What a shit country to live in if that's the case. Sounds something straight from a war torn country than a developed country.
Rich-Equivalent-1875 t1_j8nw5yc wrote
They didn’t have those at the time, you need infantry to support tanks. I am more afraid of marauding packs of criminals should the grid fall. Even with isolated riots, the government pulls out of areas and lets law abiding citizens/businesses fend for themselves. Imagine if there should be a major conflict (downfall of order) it’s not the government you have to worry about it’s the scum who depends on the government who will have nothing and stop at nothing to obtain sustenance.
Just_Jer t1_j8msnf8 wrote
what you and the rest of the grabbers conveniently forget in this buyback utopia, is that all the criminals will still have their guns, and it won't do shit to stop crime OR mass shootings...
x6tance t1_j8owi51 wrote
I'm not looking for zero crime. That's living in real utopia. But I am looking to lower the rate of homicides and violent crime which I think is an achievable goal.
By enacting a buyback program and putting guns out of circulation, I don't expect results in the following year. Gun culture is so heavily ingrained in US culture and society, it'll take a generation or two to see results. But it's better than the trajectory we're on.
The US also suffers from fundamental issues so you have people resorting to crimes, sometimes violent, which is less seen in other developed countries including our neighbors above us. Nobody will have the need to resort to crime if their basic necessities are taken care of. But American taxpayers funding a better quality of life for fellow Americans? That's not patriotism, just crony socialism.
AGK47_Returns t1_j8op7d7 wrote
>Having guns to defend against tyranny is another popular but dumb take. If America goes into a Civil War, there's no way a neighborhood of armed civilians is putting an Abrams tank out of commission or shooting down a hellfire missile from a drone. Whoever has vast control of the military and their armament, wins...and that's probably the government which is (partially) funded by the same gun owning civilians via taxes. Absolutely hilarious that they arm their own government with superior technology while holding disdain for it.
This take seems to conveniently forget Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
x6tance t1_j8ovtq4 wrote
I'm trying to find a story in Iraq and Afghanistan where they shot down a hellfire missile with small arms.
How will you fight the US Navy parked a good 200 miles off the coast and launching a tomahawk to blow up a neighborhood full of "rebellions" during this hypothetical Civil War?
AGK47_Returns t1_j8p03y1 wrote
>I'm trying to find a story in Iraq and Afghanistan where they shot down a hellfire missile with small arms.
No one is saying that, however the missiles have operators (who are human) and the operators have friends and families (who are human). The missile isn't what an efficient or effective guerilla would target.
>How will you fight the US Navy parked a good 200 miles off the coast and launching a tomahawk to blow up a neighborhood full of "rebellions" during this hypothetical Civil War?
Are you actually stating that you believe the US Government would indiscriminately level civilian neighborhoods using missiles during a hypothetical civil war? And if so, are you indicating that you would support the actions and legitimacy of said government?
WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8sdg4h wrote
Imagine actually supporting the government leveling civilian communities and being ok with it.
Weird take.
WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8sdhb8 wrote
Imagine actually supporting the government leveling civilian communities and being ok with it.
Weird take.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments