You must log in or register to comment.

VAisforLizards t1_ir7qrq2 wrote

I am so fucking sick of this shit.


OakTeach OP t1_ir7r66a wrote

You and me both. My husband teaches there. I go there for classes twice a week.


NormalSociety t1_ir7seha wrote

Get rid of the guns. It's the only way.


Draker-X t1_ir7tuon wrote

The pro-2A brigade will be along shortly to firing squad you for your heresy.


Freexscsa t1_ir839qj wrote

I have come to the conclusion that this will be the real downfall of the US when we spiral totally out of control since we can't actually do anything to ever prevent gun violence we will eventually break down completely.


Lamacorn t1_ir7w2me wrote

2A is super unclear… yes I know the SC has rulings on it, but it doesn’t say that everyone can have automatic rifles or shit like that.

> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Keilanm t1_ir8p6yq wrote

You should probably do some research before you make a moronic statement like that. You should also consider that at the time private citizens could own artillery.


Spirit117 t1_ir7wswm wrote

Automatic weapons are already extremely heavily regulated under the 1934 NFA act and are hardly something just anyone can get.

At least try to do some basic research before you spout off about what should and should not be allowed.

Edit- anyone down voting me should get off reddit and go read the NFA instead.


IAlreadyFappedToIt t1_ir7ziu1 wrote

Their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is not false simply because their example is already rendered moot by law. In fact, the fact that the 1934 NFA act exists actually demonstrates their point for them perfectly that the 2nd Amendment does not exclude the possibility of restrictions. So congrats. You don't even know what you're getting defensive about, you just know that any talk of gun control gets your little hackles raised and you just need to bite something.


Spirit117 t1_ir81zqi wrote

The Supreme Court has already ruled that citizens have a right to own semi automatic weapons including handguns (which cause far more deaths annually than rifles do in the USA) - so the NFA clearly cannot be expanded to include semiautomatic weapons without stepping on this ruling.

No ruling exists that explicitly protects automatic or other "exotic" weapons, which is why the NFA hasn't been thrown out yet.

When people talk about banning automatics, there's really no point as the NFA already exists, and it just shows they are uneducated in a field they want changes made in

. When they talk about banning semi automatics, which is really what they mean when they say they support more gun control, then you have Supreme Court cases that says that is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment.


LankyJ t1_iralum0 wrote

We all found out this year that what the Supreme Court has already ruled on is not set in stone.


Spirit117 t1_iraumpr wrote

It's set in stone until another Supreme court ruling overturns it.

There is absolutely zero chance the current court overturns heller vs DC.


pokeybill t1_ir84jy6 wrote

If we can restrict fully auto, we can restrict semi auto or anything else via a law similar to the NFA, period.

The trick is finding a congress willing to step up and pass a similar law. Until then, states will continue to struggle with the gray area left open by the 2a.


Spirit117 t1_ir84qgr wrote

No you can't, because DC already tried and the Supreme Court threw it in the garbage where it belonged in heller vs DC.

That's why congress hasn't tried, because it would be useless political pandering and would be thrown out in the first court case against it. Congress doesn't even care enough about useful political pandering in most cases, so they won't even waste their time here.

The only way to get rid of heller vs DC is to get rid of the 2nd amendment itself which cannot be done by congress.

Even places like California haven't tried a complete ban on anything semi automatic because they know it will not stand, so they've opted for things like magazine and " assault feature" bans.


OptimisticBS t1_ir86p4j wrote

We have recently seen that previous Supreme Court rulings don't mean jack shit if the current court wants to throw it out. A different Court makeup could make Heller as valid as Roe.


pokeybill t1_ir86ghv wrote

I struggle to understand how a Supreme Court decision supercedes an act of congress - the Supreme Court was literally created by an act of congress and can be undone by one as well. The heller decision only stands until an act of congress counters it, which is entirely possible in the future.

Its not political pandering to enact Sane and rational gun control.


Spirit117 t1_ir88mmk wrote

If the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitional, then it's unconstitutional and is thrown out, even if it was a law from congress. Maybe you need to study basic American civics?

It's a major check on the power of the legislative branch, congress cannot just pass whatever the hell they want if it's blatantly unconstitutional else it will be thrown out

If an act of congress goes against heller, someone will sue to block it. It will either be thrown out in a lower court, or it will be appealed. It may end up being appealed all the way to the Supreme Court if they choose to hear it. The court will then either throw it out, again, and cite their interpretation of the laws and previous rulings like heller, or they will overturn it, like roe v wade.

It is political pandering to propose laws that your party knows has zero chance of passing, and then even if it does pass, will be in direct violation of a previous ruling that was already tossed out for being unconstitutional.


pokeybill t1_ir88utp wrote

How on earth does the NFA stand? The reasoning in Heller would easily extend to it if any inkling of what you are asserting is true.

Perhaps you misunderstand what an Act is versus a statutory law? Heller was a statutory decision. Acts of congress duly ratified and constitutional amendments are significantly different than statutory law.


Spirit117 t1_ir893j1 wrote

No it doesn't. Heller reaffirmed the right to semi automatics, handguns, and certain long guns and shotguns.

The NFA doesn't apply to literally any of these. It applies to full automatic weapons, destructive devices (grenade launchers, tank guns, etc), short barreled rifles and shotguns, and suppressors.

Heller affirmed none of those, and that's how the NFA has been allowed to stand. For the record, I wish that law would be done away as well, short barreled rifles and suppressors shouldn't be a part of that.


pokeybill t1_ir89hvu wrote

You are citing statue law mixed with acts of congress again. Heller didn't overturn an act, and a Supreme Court decision is not a law - many Supreme Court decisions are overturned when later laws or acts are passed.


Spirit117 t1_ir89pq0 wrote

So what's your point then? You believe if congresses passes an act that outlaws all semi autos, that someone isn't going to sue and the Supreme Court isn't going to toss it in the garbage? They'll probanly even cite heller as a precident for declaring it unconstitutional.


pokeybill t1_ir8b0bg wrote

The Heller decision was a re-writing by the court of all previous interpretations of whether the second amendment conferred a personal right.

A similar decision could completely undo it, because again, its not a codified law - just a decision throwing out a DC statute.

Until an Act of congress defines things more narrowly,we would expect to see statutory laws unduly restricting access for home defense thrown out.

An act of congress could entirely change that, just like the Heller decision threw out all existing precedent.

So yes, a law could be passed and brought before the court which leads to yet another reinterpretation of the 2a and disregard for precedent, including Heller.

A friendly reminder there were dozens of court rulings on the 2a before Heller with far different results, and there will continue to be due to the antiquated and vague wording of the amendment.


Lamacorn t1_ir7x192 wrote

But you can still get them, so I don’t really know what your point is.


Spirit117 t1_ir7z0x7 wrote

If you count a 200 dollar tax stamp to the ATF, a fingerprint check, 6 months of your gun waiting in ATF jail before you can take possession of it, plus the cost of the gun itself, as something that "just anyone" can get. You also need to request prior written approval from the ATF to take them out of state lines from the state they were registered in.

There's no national gun registry, but there is one for NFA items, the ATF knows exactly who owns what and where it is supposed to be - violating the NFA is a 10 year prison sentence if you're lucky. If you're unlucky they'll no knock you and shoot your dog in the process. If you're really, really unlucky, it was actually your neighbor they were after and they no knocked the wrong house.

Sure you can get them but it's like..... Who's got time to jump through all those hoops?

Also, most automatic weapons had to have been manufactured before 1986 to be eligible for private ownership - which creates a limited supply which drives up price. Your basic bitch milspec AR15 costs 500 bucks from your nearest gun shop, a fully automatic eligible for transfer pre 86 ban M16 probably will cost you 15 grand.

But sure, just anyone can get these.


Mr_Bad_Example20 t1_ir7znu3 wrote

But why does anyone need one


Spirit117 t1_ir80y6x wrote

That question is irrelevant. The fact that the NFA itself hasn't been overturned or amended says the entire govt for the last 90 years agrees that "not just anyone can have these, if you want one of these, you gotta jump through extra hoops".

I can't find a single example of a mass shooting being committed with a properly licensed NFA weapon in the USA..... because there's no reason to use one.

The closest you can get is the Vegas shooting where the dude used bump stocks, which at the time were legal to own for anyone, and have since been reclassified as machine guns and now fall under the jurisdiction of the NFA.


Mr_Bad_Example20 t1_ir81ug6 wrote

In that case, I guess we need to heavily restrict handguns, since they're the most commonly used gun for homicides in the US.


Spirit117 t1_ir825yt wrote

Heller Vs DC already settled that. It says you can go pound sand :)


Mr_Bad_Example20 t1_ir82tdm wrote

I'm aware of heller v dc. I was merely using your "logic" that if automatic weapons aren't needed to commit mass shootings then maybe the weapons that are readily available to commit them need to be (well) regulated more. Also, I own guns.


26Kermy t1_ir88gpq wrote

That is how civilized countries have reduced deaths. The US is not civilized so we're going to need to reach a critical mass of tragedies before we admit that allowing free access to guns is idiotic.


[deleted] t1_ir80g0w wrote



cujobob t1_ir81e14 wrote

That’s easy to track, actually, but the people shouting not to touch the guns also don’t want to address other issues like lousy healthcare, long working hours, wage inequality, addiction, etc.

People who scream to take the guns just want action. At least taking the guns is doing something about the problem. If the other side were willing to support public welfare policies, maybe there wouldn’t be constant discussion about guns. Instead, they’re talking of repealing the ACA… again.


[deleted] t1_ir8tg4f wrote



aristidedn t1_ir8wf7a wrote

> Yeah it's doing something- like punishing people who own them to protect their families,

A gun in the household makes a family less safe, not more safe.

> themselves,

Same goes for you. You are more likely to be injured or killed by your own firearm (whether by your own hand or someone else's) than you are to ever use it to successfully defend your life.

> hunt or for sport use.

Plenty of other countries have solved the private firearm ownership problem without banning hunting or sport shooting.

> People that are not out to hurt anyone.

Every gun owner is a responsible gun owner right up until the moment their gun injures or kills someone.

> It won't do anything about people who were going to break the law and be crazy people.

Yes, it will. We already have the evidence that it does.

> I think the solution does involve some of the things you said, like long working hours, poverty reduction, and healthcare access. These may have a real impact.

Who do you vote for? Do those people actively advocate for or support reducing working hours, reducing poverty, and expanding healthcare access?

> The problem is, when crazy people want to do something bad, they are going to do something bad.

A) That isn't true, and "crazy people" aren't the real problem, and B) If a "crazy person" does want to "do something bad", we'd all much prefer if they were forced to do it with, for example, a knife as opposed to an AR-15.

> They will run over crowds of people in a vehicle,

No, they won't. Vehicle ramming attacks are vanishingly rare, even in countries where private firearm ownership is heavily restricted.

> push people in front of trains,

No, they won't. Murder by train is vanishingly rare, even in countries where private firearm ownership is heavily restricted.

> beat them, use a different weapon.

Except they don't. Reducing the availability of firearms reduces the homicide rate.

Some small percentage of perpetrators will substitute another method, but most won't. The presence of a gun escalates situations towards homicide.

> We will never reach a perfectly safe society.

A perfectly safe society isn't the goal. A society that is at least as safe as, for example, every other developed country on the planet is the goal.

> I think the focus should be on things we can do to help people before they become that far gone.

I think the focus should be on listening to experts, rather than people like you.

You obviously have some very strong opinions on this, but very little actual background knowledge to support those opinions. Nearly every factual claim you just made is demonstrably false. I'm going to ask you to do a lot less talking, and start doing a lot more listening.


[deleted] t1_ir9nvrf wrote



aristidedn t1_ira9gvx wrote

> Very little knowledge?

That's correct.

> This is the problem about assuming someone's background on the internet.

I'm not making any assumptions. If you had an appropriate level of background in this area, your comment would have reflected that.

> Unless you also served in the infantry

Child, your comment history is right there. The fact that you have military experience wasn't a secret.

> please tell me more about how my own weapon makes me unsafe, and how I have no background or knowledge on this subject.

The presence of a weapon in the household makes those residing their less safe than if there were no weapon in the household.

And the fact that someone taught you to shoot a gun has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about. What is your background in criminology? Violence or suicide epidemiology? Stats? Research methodology?

You think that being in the army makes you qualified to discuss gun control? Are you out of your skull?

> Please tell me more about who these experts are I should listen to.

Well, you can certainly begin with the ten experts on this page.

> You clearly have a very strong opinion about this too.

I do! And, unlike you, my opinion was formed after I received a tremendous amount of education and experience in this exact area.

> The difference between you and I is- I'm not making any false assumptions about your background in my post, or insulting your 'level of knowledge' on the topic.

Good call. That definitely wouldn't be a winning strategy for you.

> This is because I don't know you, and you are a random on the internet to me. I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt.

Fortunately, I don't need to do the same for you. You aren't shy about sharing your political beliefs or your personal background on reddit, and your comment history is public.

> Maybe I shouldn't give how hostile you are to me.

You're free to make whatever assumptions about me you'd like.

Just make sure they're correct.

> Should I assume you are scared of guns,

On the contrary, I think they're pretty rad. Unfortunately, the harm caused by their widespread availability is immense, so the ethical thing to do is to advocate for them to be tightly controlled, no matter how cool I think they are.

> don't have much experience (or at least formal training or professional with them),

Experience with firing guns? No, certainly nothing formal or professional. But experience on gun violence? Tons.

> that you're using statistics on suicide to pad your fake numbers about being 'less safe' because of a gun?

Nice! See, statements like this are a dead giveaway that you don't have any meaningful background here.

If you did, you'd already know that gun suicides aren't "padding." The availability of a firearm in the home actually increases the likelihood of suicide. Suicide by gun is gun violence, and is inextricably linked to gun control.

> You cited approximately 0 sources,

Sorry, I didn't realize that you would be convinced to change your beliefs by research proving you wrong.

But now that I know you will, I'm glad I provided you with those links to Harvard's resources on gun violence research!

(Of course, both of us know that if you do read that research, you'll be doing so with the goal of finding ways to discredit it, rather than aiming to learn from it. That's just how the radicalized brain works. Your closely-held beliefs are being challenged by actual evidence, and in order to avoid the physical discomfort associated with having to confront how intertwined your personal identity is with your unevidenced beliefs, you'll scramble to find excuses to reject any evidence you're given, no matter how credible that evidence is.)


[deleted] t1_irblifa wrote



aristidedn t1_irbpius wrote

> I have a graduate degree in Health Informatics.


Because two days ago (your comment was removed, but it's still visible in your comment history) you were claiming to be a current Master's student. I guess you just graduated yesterday, huh.

(Hilariously, one of my actual degrees - not in-progress - is in Informatics, though in my case the specialization is in HCI. But everyone in my program got plenty of exposure to Health Informatics as well, which is how I know that it has nothing to do with the study of gun violence and everything to do with designing shit like health information systems.)

> What's yours?

In addition to my degree in Informatics, I have a degree in criminology and the law from one of the top three programs in the country. I have work experience in a major metropolitan county statistician's office, and while there I studied and authored reports on links between localized violent crime and education outcomes. I currently work for Google on the company's efforts to combat and document, among other things, violent extremism/radicalization, hate, and threats of violence.

> Why are you trying to turn this in to some kind of measuring contest.

I'm not interested in measuring anything. I'm interested in highlighting that you have no background in this area, but have convinced yourself that your opinion is well-founded. When you encounter a topic of significant complexity that you are yourself not well-versed in, the correct approach is to defer to the consensus of experts in the field.

I'm not claiming to be an expert in this field - despite my experience, I don't even come close to that mark - but I have enough background in it to be able to identify who the experts are and to have a strong sense of what their consensus is. And it's essentially the exact opposite of the claims you've made here.

> Why are you attempting to talk down to people and calling them a 'child'.

Because you deserve to be talked down to. If you don't want to be condescended to, don't pretend at knowledge or understanding you flat-out don't have.

> Take yourself off the pedestal you're no better than anyone else on here.

On this topic, I'm better equipped to discuss it than you are. That doesn't make me "better", but it doesn't make our opinions equally valid.

> I feel if you were to have these conversations face to face and not online- you wouldn't act so immature and maybe have a little respect for your fellow human.

I have plenty of respect for people in general. But you lost mine very early on.

> I don't know if you see people who disagree with you on an issue not worthy of respect, but it's a very toxic way to have dialogue or engage in conversation.

We don't merely disagree on an issue. You believe in a set of fundamental precepts that are opposed to mine. You don't believe in intellectual honesty. You don't believe in deference to expert consensus. You form opinions first, then justify them post hoc.

If we simply disagreed on an issue, I'd have corrected you, you'd have acknowledged the correction, and that would have been that. But your fundamental beliefs prevent you from acknowledging that your position on this issue was unfounded (bordering on flat-out dishonest, to be frank).

> What are you talking about. I have a different view on gun control than you do. That doesn't make me some kind of mentally ill individual.

No one called you mentally ill. Being radicalized isn't an illness.

> It just means we have different opinions, and that's fine. People are going to disagree with you, and it would be wise to learn how to cope with the fact that not everyone has the same worldview as you do. It seems almost impossible to even have a conversation on the actual issue at hand with all of the personal insults here. You clearly don't have the capacity to have a decent conversation with someone who respectfully disagrees with you.

You might respectfully disagree with me, but I don't have the same respect for you. Why should I? I believe that you have arrived at your opinions in a cowardly, dishonest, self-centered way, that your beliefs contribute to and preserve a culture that causes tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths annually, and that you lack the empathy to recognize this.

> I have deeply personal life experience regarding suicide and people close to me.

Everyone does.

> Even with firearms access, that isn't always how people do it- and for certain, having a firearm isn't what drove them to do it.

Yes, it is. In many cases, the presence of a firearm in the home makes the difference between committing suicide and not committing suicide. In addition to the unique qualities of suicide-by-firearm (immediacy, no opportunity for regret, no opportunity for discovery, etc.), the fact that suicide-by-firearm requires no planning when a gun is available means that it takes advantage of what are known as suicidal crises - short periods on the order of minutes where suicidal ideation is most intense and the likelihood of carrying out a suicide attempt is strongest. Most methods of committing suicide either require more planning time than the crisis period allows for, or offer a window for regret or discovery (e.g., drug overdose) that is longer than the crisis period.

Again, if you knew anything at all about suicide as a phenomenon, you wouldn't have said the things you just said.

EDIT: Since KaserneX31 decided to block me immediately after responding (weird choice, buddy, since that prevents the user from reading the comment!) I'll go ahead and respond here.

> I'm 6 credits (2 electives) away, also from a top university. Didn't think it would matter, but I guess it does to you.

"My relevant experience is I hold a degree in X" vs. "My relevant experience is I'm literally still a student" is a pretty big difference to just about anyone, my dude.

You tried to pull a fast one and got caught.

> You have your mind made up based on your sources (which I would consider biased)

My sources are a veritable mountain of peer-reviewed, prominently published scholarly journal articles either published by or collated by actual Harvard University and written by some of the leading researchers in the field of violence epidemiology. There literally are no sources on the planet more objectively authoritative on the subject matter.

You consider them biased because they conclude things that make you uncomfortable.

> and personal life experiences,

What personal life experiences? Are you referring to my academic experience, my professional experience, or something else?

> I have mine made up based on my own personal life experience

What personal life experiences? Are you referring to your (still incomplete) academic experience, your professional experience as a person who got paid to shoot guns, or something else?

> and sources (which you would consider biased).

Maybe! It depends! Are your sources a gigantic collection of peer-reviewed academic research published by dozens of highly-qualified researchers operating at the forefront of their respective fields?

Or is your source a bunch of stuff written by John Lott for his gun nut Patreon subscribers?

> I would be careful to label people who disagree with you as radicals (I assume you're very different in person than online with Reddit).

I don't label people who merely disagree with me as radicalized. For example, there are a ton of people who think mayonnaise is great. I disagree! I think it's pretty bad. But I don't think mayo-lovers are radicalized for disagreeing with me.

But you? Yeah, buddy. You have all the hallmarks of a radicalized person.

And I'd know.


[deleted] t1_irats1b wrote



aristidedn t1_irb1bor wrote

> What is “the household”?

This is a research study; we're talking about the average household.

> Certainly not his household,

How would he know?

> and not my household either.

How would you know?

Again, every person can be described as a "responsible gun owner", right up until the moment they aren't.

You're free to believe that you'll beat the odds, but that isn't what most people would call a wise choice.

The belief that a person is more likely, statistically, to use a firearm in the household to successfully defend themselves or their family from harm is simply false. A person is more likely to be accidentally injured or killed by a firearm in the household, assaulted or murdered by another member of the household with a firearm in that household, assaulted or murdered by a non-member of the household with a firearm in that household, or to commit suicide with a firearm in that household than they are to heroically fend off a mortal threat.

You've allowed the power fantasy of the self-sufficient protector/killer to overwhelm your ability to think clearly. It's more important to you to maintain that fantasy than it is to actually ensure your safety or the safety of your loved ones.

If it makes you feel any better, there are literally millions of men just like you in America.


thecwestions t1_ir8zrj1 wrote

I lived in Japan for a number of years, and they have just as much mental illness as other countries. You know what they don't have? Mass shootings. Or any shootings for that matter. Sure there is the occasional suicide by train or wild person wielding a kitchen knife, but impact is severely limited by comparison.

Take away the guns, and you fix the gun problem. And before anyone flies off the handle about 'I have to protect my family!' Just remember that a staggering number of gun-related domestic violence and death (by suicide) in the US is also due to guns. You have a better chance of protecting your family by not having a gun in the home than you would fending off any would-be attackers.


cujobob t1_ir8u93a wrote

Access has proven to lead to an increase in certain gun crimes. The idea that criminals are just going to do criminal things is basically saying.. let’s not have laws, locks on our doors, or prisons at all. We do criminalize stupid things way too heavily and need action to prevent crimes from ever occurring, but still… access is a problem.

In other countries, they have occasional stabbings, but at least then you have a chance (and the volume is lower so risk is lower).

The only reason gun bans are ever mentioned is because people want solutions to problems and they’re sick of inaction. The longer it goes on, the greater the action they’ll want. If it was a new problem, people would accept minor gun regulation reform. The NRA used to be a huge proponent of gun safety and responsibility, now look at it. The dollar signs blinded everyone.


imnotsoho t1_ir8mz83 wrote

Fire has been around a lot longer than houses and apartment buildings, should we not try to keep fire out of those places?


WormJohnson t1_ire9nhi wrote

I mean idk about you but I don't have a fireplace so if there was a fire in my house I wouldn't really want it there and would probably leave


Aegon_Nasty t1_ir89tuo wrote

But that would require the abolition of capitalism and a complete revolution in the way the masses think of society. And now you're talking MY language.


pijinglish t1_ir8peaw wrote

At least republicans are around to oppose all possible solutions.


volkhavaar t1_ir80vmf wrote

Or just remove the guns. Problem solved. Case closed. Done. Can go do something else now.


briefbriefs t1_ir81nh2 wrote

You’re treating a symptom and not the disease. To get rid of the sickness we have to do more than just take guns away.


frisbeescientist t1_ir828en wrote

In fairness there's a lot of overlap between those wanting more gun restrictions and those wanting better healthcare and more awareness of mental health issues. Whereas there's a lot of overlap between those who refuse to make guns harder to get and those who also refuse to talk about better public services like healthcare. Let's be honest, the only time I hear conservatives talk about mental illness is as a deflection from gun control. So next time you're wondering why there's so much willingness to restrict gun access, it's partly because the other side of the coin isn't offering any solutions at all, just excuses.


volkhavaar t1_ircpb7z wrote

No, I literally just want to go do something else rather then hem and haw all day. If a toddler is banging a toy on the floor making a ruckus I'll take the toy away and go back to what I was doing.


aristidedn t1_ir8wr3t wrote

Cool. Let's also address systemic poverty, racial inequality, expand access to healthcare and mental health for the most in need, and make a concerted cultural shift away from the toxic masculinity that sees violence as a solution to problems.

There's one major party that consistently supports the above goals, and it's also the same party that wants to reduce the availability of guns.

Now: Which party's politicians do you vote for?


JD0x0 t1_ir879j9 wrote

Oh shit. Genius. Let's take away all forks so people with overeating disorders can't overeat. Such an effective solution.

Let's take away all the drugs so people can't hurt others or themselves with them.

I can really see stuff working out perfectly with no additional or underlying issues to address. ^(/s)


VAisforLizards t1_ir7sgpb wrote

It's going to have to be a bit more nuanced than that.

Edit: "Get rid of the guns" is just as mindless and naive of an answer as Abbott saying he will eliminate rape. It is going to take an actual coordinated and organized systemic change at the federal level. There must be federal gun laws that are strictly enforced limiting the purchase, sale, and transfer of guns. And likely a lot of other measures that I am not knowledgeable enough in. Saying "get rid of guns" might make you feel good to say, but there is fundamentally no way at this point to just "get rid of guns"


NormalSociety t1_ir7szsg wrote

You can have shootings and mass killings, or you don't. Time for walking on egg shells and the nuances is over.


No___ImRight t1_ir7to9y wrote

How to you propose to get rid of them?

By force?


nrfmartin t1_ir8ezb2 wrote

People don't understand that we are too far gone. There is no getting rid of guns. It can't and won't happen. This is our reality.


Kingfish36 t1_ir7tti6 wrote

Buybacks and anyone who doesn’t faces serious jail time after the grace period ends


ForsakenSherbet t1_ir7uf3b wrote

The 2nd Amendment would have to be revoked to changed in order for it to be a crime to possess a firearm


MountNevermind t1_ir87568 wrote

It's already a crime to possess a firearm under numerous conditions, so apparently, that's not the case. The rest is arguing details.


Kingfish36 t1_ir7ul2d wrote

Sounds good let’s do it


Spirit117 t1_ir7wyk7 wrote

Great, get started with the process of amending the constitution then.


[deleted] t1_ir81525 wrote



Spirit117 t1_ir8292c wrote

Uhhhh.... The fact that I don't support gun control and believe a fair number of our existing laws including the NFA are already unconstitutional?

For the record, I'm fine with automatics being included under the current restrictions of the NFA, but suppressors need to go, and short barreled rifles should go as well.


NormalSociety t1_ir7uxyk wrote

But God said my right to a gun is inalienable!!!!


Kingfish36 t1_ir7v353 wrote

Remington 3:16 For god so loved the world he shot the piss outta satan.

Conservatives are a joke


fbtcu1998 t1_ir7zsov wrote

Australia did this. They spent around 600M and got 630k guns, which represented about 20% of total firearms.

If we did the same thing and recovered 20% at the same cost/gun, it would cost us 40B. That 40B would take us from 400M guns to 320M guns....I just don't see any politician championing spending 40B to barely make a dent.


MountNevermind t1_ir86oc8 wrote

Reducing gun deaths by 20 percent is pretty close to ten thousand lives a year. Or roughly 90s level.

Doesn't seem like something best characterized by barely making a dent.

The US spends a lot more on a lot less useful things.


fbtcu1998 t1_ir87lez wrote

you wouldn't reduce gun deaths by 20%, you'd reduce legally owned guns by 20%. assuming the ratio of deaths to guns would remain the same (which I'm doubtful it would since most gun crimes are done with illegally owned firearms), it would be closer to 2000/year, or 5% reduction. But then you'd have to look at deaths from other things to see if you're really saving lives or you're just shifting them to a different cause of death.


MountNevermind t1_ir8873q wrote

Interesting that you didn't continue to discuss Australia, since you brought it up.

Because assuming a 1:1 ratio is conservative next to Australia's experience.

They experienced a 57 percent drop in firearm suicides and a firearm homicide rate drop by about 42 percent.

From reducing access by 20 percent. Similar results would save around 25 thousand lives per year in the US.

The TSA budget is 7.68 billion a year for what amounts to security theatre.

Calling this kind of actual leadership a drop in the bucket is just objectively wrong especially considering what we waste money on.

Gun violence costs the US an estimated 557 billion a year.

If it achieved what it achieved in Australia it would pay for itself many times over.


fbtcu1998 t1_ir893ps wrote

The data I saw did show a reduction in those categories, but two things to keep in mind...they were also reducing before the change, so it could have been the trend they were already seeing. And they saw an increase in other causes of death other than firearms as well. There just isn't enough to say their buy back program was the cause of the reduction.


MountNevermind t1_ir8a5jk wrote

The firearm deaths by suicide were trending down before 1996, the firearm homicides were decidedly not.

It's obvious what the long term impact was.

But I completely believe in people's ability to explain things away to themselves.

The homicide rate has dropped precipitously since the change had time to take effect.,a%209.57%25%20decline%20from%202016.

At a certain point, you have to look the obvious in the face. Thanks for bringing Australia up. It's an excellent example.


fbtcu1998 t1_ir8pqax wrote

>the firearm homicides were decidedly not

Unless I'm reading it wrong, firearm homicide rates went from .44 to .23, from 91-95 then a sharp increase in 96 probably driven by the mass shooting that killed 35 people...which was about 10% of total gun deaths for that year that prompted the change. So .44 to .23 in 5 years prior to the change, then .28 to .14 in 97-01. So a .19 drop in 5 years prior, and then a .14 drop in the 5 years after.

Thing is, you're looking at aggregate numbers while ignoring prior trends and other factors to force a causal relationship. Problem is, not everyone sees its not as obvious as you claim.

Here's a snippet:

"Most other studies have examined the NFA in its entirety and have examined changes in the trend of outcomes and whether the NFA caused a change in the trend. From these studies, it is difficult to estimate a causal effect of the law."


MountNevermind t1_ir8w0fk wrote

So you're citing something that says simply that from these studies it is difficult to estimate a causal effect of the law to mean that the studies found that it didn't have a causal effect for the very distinct effect (that it fully recognizes) that followed. That's misreading several important aspects of that sentence.

You are most assuredly reading it wrong if you're using the second source I just cited. That's not firearm homicides for one. I specifically chose that source in response to your claim. You made a claim that the effect of other types of homicides increased as a result of the drastic firearm homicide rate decrease. I cited a source that showed whether that's true or not, the overall homicide rate went down, I'm not sure what your point was. I mean your point was clearly to suggest other homicide causes went up as gun causes went down negating the effect. But that's not even remotely the case. Again, you're throwing a bunch of talking points out there that appear to make sense...but they just don't upon inspection. To then baselessly claim I'm the one misusing data is rich.

The overall homicide rate was more or less constant until a few years after 1996. There was no general trend of its decrease as you've claimed. You can claim otherwise, but again, I've just cited a straightforward source showing you're wrong about that. Your own source is consistent with my source on this topic.

Again, there was no real trending down of firearm homicides or homicides (beyond a very slight one four years prior to 1996 if you squint at that logarithmic chart real closely), that's simply not the case, as I've already cited. I ceded that there was a trending down of firearm suicides the predated making firearms 20% less available to Australians. As cited, it went down even more rapidly after that. You tried to lump in homicide deaths trending down to suggest it applied to firearm homicides beforehand...but that's again misuse of information. There was an overall decreased in suicides that started previously, which accounted for pretty much any change in "firearm deaths" prior to 1996.

>The greater declines in nonfirearm homicides led the authors to doubt whether any changes can be attributed to the NFA.

How does it follow that nonfirearm homicides declining as well as firearm homicides declining means that the changes can't be attributed to the NFA? The authors don't explain this hunch at all they simply toss it out there. An unsupported assertion is all that it is, one that doesn't logically follow. Guns are a force multiplier. They make the use of deadly force far easier than other available forms of homicide. This is why they are useful militarily and for self-defense. It would be entirely expected that the overall homicide rate would drop as a result of making firearms less available. These authors, without further comment suggest the opposite. That's horseshit.

>Overall conclusion: Only one study (McPhedran, 2018) provides convincing statistically significant evidence that firearm homicides changed after implementation of the NFA—specifically, that there was an absolute reduction in female firearm homicide victimization.

Notice the loaded language here. Their overall conclusion makes sure to state that the study in question provides CONVINCING STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE THAT FIREARM HOMICIDES CHANGED AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NFA. They simply insert the word "only" to diminish the importance. They found NO statistically significant evidence that firearms homicides did NOT change after implementation of NFA. A study that finds nothing is not the same thing, particularly if the authors aren't claiming it was more rigorous than the study they describe as convincing and statistically significant.

It's ridiculously clear from their own graph that the downward trend they manage to claim for firearm related homicides for a period of like 4 years before 1996 accelerated quickly afterward. They make no claim as to what that trend might be due to nor do they mention it was all of 4 years which hardly makes for much of a substantive trend, or why it should be continuing for decades. The pre-1996 trend on their own graph amounts to a very small dip right before 1996 not some sort of long lasting downward trend and certainly not at the degree the trend continues after 1996.

>Overall conclusion: Suicide rates, and particularly firearm suicide rates, decreased more rapidly after the NFA and the 2003 handgun buyback program compared with before passage of the law. This finding, along with the finding that firearm suicide rates declined more in regions where more guns were turned in, is consistent with the hypothesis that the NFA caused suicide rates to decline. However, these effects took place during a time of generally declining suicide rates in Australia. The fact that the observed reductions in suicide do not appear to be limited to firearm-related suicides raises questions about whether declines in suicides are primarily attributable to the NFA or whether other social forces, such as those contributing to pre-NFA declines, account for these changes.

So again your source states plainly that it's overall conclusion is consistent with the hypothesis that the NFA caused suicide rates to decline.

It then throws mud over that by saying there was already a general decline in suicide rates. What it does NOT say is that is has any evidence to suggest this previous trend is responsible for the decline seen post-NFA. It merely tosses it out there after being straightforward about confirming that it's investigations support the NFA effect on suicides. It just says it "raises questions"...which is not a scientific or objective statement about the data analyzed. You could say just about anything "raises questions". Raising questions is not a significant finding. You can find people raising questions about whether the Earth is round.

This study's greatest contribution comes from this beautiful phrase in its main conclusion:

>Most other studies have examined the NFA in its entirety and have examined changes in the trend of outcomes and whether the NFA caused a change in the trend. From these studies, it is difficult to estimate a causal effect of the law. This is because, from a design perspective, there is no adequate comparison group to serve as a proxy counterfactual; that is, what would have happened had Australia not adopted the NFA?

Wow. Thanks, we can't understand an effect because we can't measure a alternate universe where the NFA didn't happen. That's some ground breaking analysis. It's kind of hard to take this seriously. The authors make no effort to examine any other effects relevant to this issue. They are merely concerned with as they say "raising questions". Which was enough for you to cite it uncritically as something offering evidence that the NFA had no effect....

But it doesn't hold water. Not at all.


fbtcu1998 t1_ir90m9e wrote

>You are most assuredly reading it wrong if you're using the second source I just cited

I used the first link, it showed specifically firearm homicides/suicides. You claimed firearm homicides were not trending down, but they were until 1996 when they spiked, because of the mass shooting. But I was wrong, that one event didn't inflate the homicides by 10% it was more like 30%.

>The overall homicide rate was more or less constant until a few years after 1996

Fair enough, point conceded. I was going from memory and got it wrong. Might have been thinking of non firearm related suicides, they seemed to go up but either way I was wrong about homicides shifting to other causes. But I was refuting your claim that FIREARM homicides were not declining before 96, more so than trying to support my claim of the shift. the first link you provided shows they were declining prior to 96 (table 2). Keep in mind, you initially said firearm homicide rates, I replied to that.

>They simply insert the word "only" to diminish the importance

So one study says yes, the other studies say 'not sure', but we're supposed to take the one study and ignore the others? Also they didn't use the word to diminish the importance, they used it signify there was only one study that supported the claim of a causal effect, the others did not.

as far as your issues with the conclusions they came up with or their methodology, or language, etc. take it up with them. I'm sure you trust your sources, over me. And I'll take Rand over you. And they say that only ONE study showed a causal link, the others did not. That was the heart of my argument when you said the results were obvious. Yes they saw a decline post 96, but they were already seeing a decline so you can't say the NFA caused the decline.


MountNevermind t1_ir914xd wrote

Look. If you are going to mislead like that we are done here. The source in question clearly shows no downward trend in firearm deaths of any real note. The spike has nothing to do with it. Ignore it if you like.

This is getting silly.


fbtcu1998 t1_ir9186z wrote

It was your source. Are you saying the numbers are wrong?


MountNevermind t1_ir92186 wrote

I'm saying what the source says is plain. What you're doing with the numbers is beneath you and not worth my time to point out.

This isn't in good faith clearly and is a waste of further effort.

EDIT: What you're doing isn't difficult or honest. We're done here.


fbtcu1998 t1_ir92k2s wrote

Well, you linked it…it showed firearm homicide rates declining from 91-95, sharp rise in 96, then declining 97-01. Your own link refuted your claim that they were not declining before the NFA. The only reason spiked was an anomaly that vastly drove the number in 96. But sounds like you don’t want to acknowledge it was an anomaly, which I find disingenuous so yeah, guess we’re both done


No___ImRight t1_ir7v7ez wrote

Do you think police will start bashing down the doors of white rednecks or black citizens in inner cities?

Police aren't known to be good people.


Kingfish36 t1_ir7vjhc wrote

Obviously this is something that would have to be addressed if we enacted this type of legislation. You’re not wrong even though I wish you were.


somereallyfungi t1_ir7voqk wrote

Do I think they'll start bashing down the doors of black citizens? No, they've been doing that for the past 150 years


oeuvre-and-out t1_ir7u6k6 wrote

Wow, if this were ever enacted I'd bet the only people who would still have guns would be...criminals.


Kingfish36 t1_ir7uhw0 wrote

Tired of this argument. We’re the only country that regularly deals with mass shootings. Are there no criminals in other countries who want guns? If it’s a mental health thing are we the only country who has people with mental health problems? What steps are being taken to address the mental health problems in the country? How are we making those resources more available for people who need them so they don’t commit these shootings.

The answer is we aren’t doing anything. These are all deflections of a real solution which is getting rid of the guns


slanginthangs t1_ir7w148 wrote

FYI this wasn’t a mass shooting


Kingfish36 t1_ir7watd wrote

Thanks for that. Next tell me how I’m using the term assault rifle/semi-automatic rifle incorrectly. It helps move the discussion forward /s

We average just about one mass shooting per day, the point stands dumbass


27catsinatrenchcoat t1_ir801cx wrote

Why resort to name calling? The person you replied to just clarified the situation on a post that is inevitably going to have many people who don't read the article commenting thinking this was a mass school shooting. They literally said nothing else to you before that.

How is calling strangers dumbasses helping your argument at all? You're just outing yourself as a jerk.

(And sure as fuck doesn't "move the conversation forward")


oeuvre-and-out t1_ir8osmu wrote

> We average just about one mass shooting per day,

This is an arguable statistic. The anti-gun crowd has redefined the term to include urban violence incidents (gang-related violence, etc.) That's not what people understand to be the meaning - but that's part of the agenda.


slanginthangs t1_ir7wwfd wrote

If you think this country is getting rid of guns you’re the dumbass


Kingfish36 t1_ir7xgmp wrote

But that’s a different argument. Do I think it’s gonna happen? No. Do I think it’s a solution to ending/significantly cutting down the number of mass shootings? Yes.

They’re intertwined but can be separate discussions


jofizzm t1_ir7zz98 wrote

Banning the sale of handguns would probably make the biggest dent.

That said there are literal millions already out there. So you could try a mandatory buyback, but who's gonna send a bunch of 19 year old national guardsman door to door to force compliance? Hell I've got more than 10 handguns myself.

Something obviously needs to change, but there is no way it won't be messy.


NormalSociety t1_ir7yvxq wrote

To your edit: yes. It will have to be organized, and the majority of the society would have to be involved. Bit you guys (Americans) aren't talking about doing anything. Nothing substantial has been done, no plans to get to the heart of the problem, no nothing.

I said that as a statement, and it's a truism. Just like the only way to get rid of COVID is to get rid of the virus.


[deleted] t1_ir845df wrote



veerKg_CSS_Geologist t1_ir8f86b wrote

They couldn't do nothin' because he was a "Good Guy with a Gun" until the moment he opened fire.


Ares1935 t1_ir8j7vh wrote

making threats is a crime.


veerKg_CSS_Geologist t1_ir8mrtk wrote

Wasn't there a judgement recently that unless they're literally in jail they can't be prevented from owning guns?


Ares1935 t1_ir8nff8 wrote

yeah, I believe threats would be a misdemeaner in most states, and likely produce a restraining order. Not an automatic disqualification for weapons though.

However, the court could also revoke their right to possess weapons if they felt they were an ongoing threat of violence.

At least thats how it would work in some states, not sure about arizona...


mceric01 t1_ir7wn7o wrote

Doesn’t appear to be a mass shooting type incident like all the comments assume.


thebooknerd_ t1_ir85rt7 wrote

He was targeting specific people. From some of my friends who were VERY close to this situation, he had threatened people in the department last semester and should have been in jail.


Some_Gun_Nut t1_ir7yeml wrote

Ya. If only one person died. It was most definitely targetted and not mass murder attempt.


dinoroo t1_ir92v2v wrote

Just a regular public shooting. Nothing to be concerned about fellow Americans. This is the price of freedom.


mceric01 t1_irb2vxd wrote

This is a reflection of our culture, not our ability to possess guns


dinoroo t1_irb452r wrote

The culture is irresponsible in regards to guns.


N8CCRG t1_ir7ygq5 wrote

At the moment, there are no comments here saying or implying a mass shooting. Yours is the only one bringing it up.


kiestaking t1_ir7ysib wrote

Not a mass shooting but still a shooting. Suspect shot one victim and is in the wind apparently

Edit: article says they don't know condition of victim yet


Certain_Yam_110 t1_ir7zcos wrote

Stand by for word from the legislators who literally want to mandate guns in schools.


MavisGrizzletits t1_ir996vj wrote

The barger was certainly harsh.

(Oh look, it’s a day ending in -y in the good ol US of A yet again)


xXSpaceturdXx t1_ir9grgg wrote

Have none of these schools learned anything from the others about school shootings? They didn’t even have a fucking lock on the door there? I think every school needs to be more proactive than that. This is negligence by the school. Thank God nobody else got hurt.


murdocke t1_ir7vqtv wrote

Clearly the only answer to this is more guns.


Murderface__ t1_ir7sf7c wrote

America: Oh no! ... Anyway.