I am aware this is satire. But this line is a direct quote from so many people, with a completely straight dace
There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this individual from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what they really wanted
“But they could use a knife or a bat or a car!”
Without seeing the fact that having such free access to “tools” designed for the sole purpose of killing many people in as little time as possible.
Anyone against gun control is completely smooth brained. Anyone who complains about gun control, that the government shouldn’t control and regulate access, that they need multiple guns for “self defence” should not be allowed access to any gun.
Another common one is
“buh only criminals will have guns”,
except that never happens in any other developed nation.
Its for self defense
Sure. From other people with guns. And not a single shooting has been stopped prevented by “good guy with gun™️”.
/rant
The second amendment is nominally there to allow people to form state militias in case the United States get invaded. With that in mind (and ignoring the many ways in which this kind of militia is completely irrelevant for defense purposes these days) we can come up with a reasonable compromise.
Anyone is allowed to own any gun they want. Access to ammunition is strictly regulated; only the state and shooting ranges are allowed to own ammo at all and the latter are under very strict supervision. Unlawful possession of ammunition is a felony.
In case the US Army is overrun each state will conscript all gun owners and issue them ammunition from the stockpile so they can go out and engage any enemy forces susceptible to infantry attack.
I’m sure all fans of the second amendment are going to love this plan. /s
That’s pretty much the setup that early colonists had, and it makes a lot of sense.
Ammo and muskets were kept in an armory, cuz it was dangerous to have powder laying around your candlelit home and muskets required frequent maintenance by skilled craftsmen.
Firearms were also somewhat collectively-owned, because they were primarily a means of collective defense.
Think about it: You’ve got the British in the ocean to the East, rival colonies to the North and South, indigenous tribes to the West, and the ever-present possibility of a mob of outlaws literally taking over your town.
It’s a very different world, and a very different relationship to weaponry.
The second amendment is nominally there to allow people to form state militias in case the United States get invaded.
I want to add to this, because it’s never mentioned.
As with most problems in the world (prove me wrong), it can be traced back to British colonialism. The British usually disarmed everyone in their colonies, but American colonists were allowed to have guns and form militias because they were actively forcing Natives off their land.
Basically everyone had guns or access to them, and every colony had militias. Without them, there’s no chance the colonists could have then taken on the strongest empire in the world.
So now the line is that we need guns to fight tyranny, or whatever.
But… We did that. We won. We have a “democracy” now. We rounded up or killed all the Natives and fulfilled our Manifest Destiny™️. We have the most powerful military in the fucking visible universe.
Does my dumbass alcoholic neighbor Randy really need an AR to fight the gubmint?
The 2nd Amendment is from 1791, decades after the US had become an independent country. So you can’t blame this one on the British.
As an Irish person, I say it’s ok to blame whatever you want on the Brits.
1791 - 1783 = 8.
They declared independence quite some time before that. And your maths does not disprove my point in any way either way. The 2nd amendment does not have anything to do with the British. I know it must be a hard burden, but Americans must take full responsibility for the 2nd amendenment.
I don’t think they blamed the British. They just explained their theory as to why the colonists could take control.
As with most problems in the world (prove me wrong), it can be traced back to British colonialism.
I don’t think they blamed the British.
You may not think so, but your reading skills leaves something to be desired.
Fair enough…
btw. i believe this is somewhat similar to how Switzerland handles assault rifles nowadays. There are situations where you are allowed to have an assault rifle at home or even carry it in public but the ammo has to be locked away at a central storage that is guarded. They can very quickly hand out the ammo to the holders if necessary, i.e. for training on the shooting range. I am not Swiss so this is only hearsay though.
Not entirely true. There was that guy in Colorado who drew his weapon, and took out an active shooter. Then the police rolled in, mistook him for the threat, and promptly killed him. Yay, armed society! /s
And not a single shooting has been stopped by “good guy with gun™️”.
Man, you shouldn’t have included this last line. Everyone replying to you is completely ignoring the relevant and accurate content of your comment in favour of “Well Ackshually” pointing out the handful of times a good person with a gun did successfully stop a shooting.
not a single shooting has been stopped by “good guy with gun”
At least you didn’t end with “/facts” ?
Here’s the most famous one from just last year:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/19/us/eli-dicken-indiana-mall-shooting-bystander/index.html
As long as progressives refuse to educate themselves on this issue and continually lie to try to score points the right will own it…lock, stock, and barrel.
Fight facts with more facts and we might see some sanity emerge.
The quote I’ve heard most often:
No law (sometimes: piece of paper) is going to stop a criminal from committing a crime.
Truly one of the dumbest takes of all time. If laws weren’t at least somewhat effective, there would be no point in having laws.
“bad people are going to do bad things anyway, may as well make it easier for them!”
deleted by creator
Not a single shooting has been stopped by a good guy with a gun? Here’s some light reading for you.
Indiana shooter stopped by civilian
Why would you make a claim that us so easily debunked? What purpose did that serve?
Over 500 mass shootings. And that’s this year alone.
So yah, EXTREMELY light reading bro.
Oh, if you got through that already we can keep going. Give me a minute to compile more articles.
It’s been 2 hours. Need a couple more minutes?
My apologies. I was unaware that you weren’t familiar with the term ‘figure of speech.’ Anyway, here you go.
69 year old woman shoots intruder
We are currently at 565 mass shootings this year.
Let’s say every story you shared happened this year, just for the sake of simplicity. That is 10 scenarios. Again, not accurate, since you shared stories ranging in different years. But again, we are just doing some back of the napkin math.
That means, there’s about a 1.77% chance that “a good guy with a gun” does solve things.
So less than 2% chance. 2%.
The success rate of a mass shooter gunning multiple people down is 98% and you are actively going, “Well actually armed citizens does work…” And simple math is showing that it works LESS THAN 2% this year, even when I fudged the numbers to assume all of those stories happened this year.
The biggest flaw in your math is that you think because I stopped listing articles that’s the only times it’s ever happened. On a similar note related to statistics, covid was killing 2% of people that got infected. Even after all the safety precautions and vaccines. Yet we still had to save as many of that 2% as possible, and rightfully so. But now that your math comes out to 2% of shooting situations being stopped, it’s no big deal? I’m having trouble understanding that logic.
Sure, we can ban all guns under the assumption that no one will have guns, but do you not think that crime organizations will aquire them elsewhere? Drugs are illegal yet there’s no shortage there. I’m still having trouble seeing the logic.
I get the sentiment of saving as many lives as possible. I just think the methodology in gun control is flawed. Help me join your side, what am I seeing wrong?
deleted by creator
That’s your takeaway? Why even comment?
deleted by creator
I mean sure, but that’s completely irrelevant to my comment.
It seems their point is that the percentages are similar to success, so although the subject is different, the comparison still stands.
I’m sure people have been “the good guy with a gun” a number of times, but the chance of success and the risk of shooting an innocent factor into the continued use of that as an argument point against gun control.
(Edited: they’re to their)
So what’s the threshold of success rate that everyone winaccurate. 10%? 50%? Everybody talks about gun control “because if we can save just one life…” I’m not saying everyone should go out and buy a gun. I know plenty of people I would trust with a pencil. The point to my comment was that to make the claim that not one instance has been stopped by a good guy with a gun is both completely outrageous and inaccurate. Also, I know plenty of civilians that have had far more training than most police officers and military. When I was enlisted we had to qualify once a year. The requirement? Hit a target 23 out of 40 times. That’s pretty low considering the lethality of the other 17 rounds that missed their mark. I would assume police requirements are similar although I honestly have no idea.
I feel like there’s some room to explore how many needless deaths have occurred the the hands of overzealous gun owners. I’ll be honest, I don’t know the statistics on “rightful” and “wrongful” executions.
There’s at least two side to every argument, focusing on one side in any argument will only allow you to prove your own point.
Sad watching people like you type out a bunch of nonsense as though it’s true.
I guess that’s why people like you are so ‘up in arms’ about gun control; you’re living in a fantasy world where you think that criminals don’t have guns in other developed nations.
Is this a satirical comment? You are literally the person in the article
What are you talking about?
Are you also delusional enough to believe criminals don’t have guns in other developed nations?
Criminals dont have guns
You seem to be speaking in the absolute “No criminal has any gun ever” without understanding of any nuance whatsoever.
Go study then come back
No, I’m literally repeating what he said.
If it sounds stupid, it’s because it is and that’s why I don’t agree with it. Lol.
The guy who killed Shinzo Abe in Japan literally had to build the gun and was only able to do so efficiently because he was an ex-member of the JMSDF.
That’s how hard it is to get a gun in Japan. And surprise! They have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.
Nice cherrypicking.
Thanks for supporting my point about living in a fantasy world, lol.
And surprise! They have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.
It must be the guns, right? Not their culture? What about nations that ban guns but have higher homicide rates than Japan or even the U.S.?
What about nations that ban guns but have higher homicide rates than Japan or even the U.S.?
The only countries that fit this definition outside Central/South America and Sub-Saharian Africa are Russia, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Palau and Kiribati.
Literally all of Europe and all of Asia with a functioning democracy have a lower homicide rate than the US. I wouldn’t really call that “cherrypicking”.
Is that what you’re comparing to? You think the US police would be as bad at enforcing a gun control law as the one in Kiribati?
So… what you’re telling me is it’s not just the guns. It’s their culture.
Interesting. I guess we can agree that banning guns doesn’t actually reduce homicide rates if the nation has people who want to kill each other.
I wouldn’t really call that “cherrypicking”.
Lol, so ignoring everything that goes against your argument isn’t cherrypicking? Dang. Stay in school, son.
Wow, didn’t know that the entire civilized world except the US has absolutely no desire to kill each other, and all of the underdeveloped countries are full of bloodthirsty assassins.
Guess the very similar culture of Japan, Italy and Australia must be the cause.
It almost feels like the countries with high homicide rate despite the gun laws could have some correlation to being less civilized places with high corruption and/or inefficient law enforcement, but you definitely know better than me I guess.
Dang, there you go thinking in absolutes because you want to avoid information that goes against your arguments.
You mentioned homicide rates. They’re not 0 on any of the continents you mentioned. Why are you arguing against me as though I think there’s no desire to kill in the nations you mentioned?
Homicide rates are lower in some nations than others, regardless of gun laws, because of their culture. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
This is my point. You will avoid any information that contradicts what you want to believe and then get mad when people don’t live in your fantasy world.
It’s not a fantasy, it’s observed reality. There are almost no mass shootings anywhere outside the US. The few that did happen were from terrorists : people on a mission and part of an organisation, not some lone dude able to buy a rifle at the closest 7-11. At this point, if you don’t want gun control, you just don’t want to save your peers from being murdered. As far as I’m concerned you’re an accomplice.
There are almost no mass shootings anywhere outside the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_shootings_by_country
Educate yourself.
As far as I’m concerned you’re an accomplice.
Lol, this is what I mean by ‘getting up in arms’ while living in a fantasy world. I think you might be spending too much time on these forums, and it’s distorting your view of reality. You can’t realize it though because it makes you fit in with those around you.
Oh well. Gonna block you now. You don’t seem like the kind of rational person who has information that’s worth taking seriously.
You want to try reading that ? most other countries have three or four occurrences total. US has… 4011 in the last decade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
You’re the one whose beliefs are blinding them my friend.
Lol you know it’s bad when you start drilling down into the subcategories. You open up the 2020s for the UK and it’s 3 small articles. You open up the 2020s for the US and it’s like, “Alright you want all the shootings from 2020, 2021, 2022, or 2023? Cause this is gonna take a while.”
It’s weird, my guns have never committed a mass shooting, yet people say that they’re a problem…
A 1km ball of enriched uranium has never committed murder, either. Should I drop one by your pillow at night?
I should hope not! How would you get 1 km’s worth of enriched uranium? a-yo!
Are you acting dumb on purpose ?
I hope the writer for this article makes residuals. They’re getting a lot of use out of it
They do actually rewrite it slightly each time they repost it, even though the title is the same
They just change the date, city, number of victims, and then change the fake person’s name for the quote. The rest stays exactly the same.
Yes, that’s how all news sites do it now
But in this case it’s part of the point of the repeating article that the article is nearly identical every time
What? This whole time I thought it was always the same article shared over and over when there’s another shooting, I mean the original one from years ago. That’s somehow sadder…
It would be darkly funny if they had an “____ Days Since We Had to Repost This” counter for it.
It will be stuck at 0
It would, no exaggeration. There are 1 or more mass shootings every day in the US.
“We did nothing and we are all out of options!”
That’s the real American tragedy, that we’ve been beaten into believing that “nothing can be done to prevent this.” Something COULD be done, it just won’t be. I’m sure as we learn more about this reprehensible idiot who caused this sick misery, we’ll come to find out there were all kinds of red flags on his social media posts and his emails and his past arrest records and yet nobody bothered to take them seriously, or cared enough about him to connect him with psychotherapy and medication. Sad. Because the truth is, this kind of thing is always ENTIRELY preventable - if only Americans were smarter about gun control and less obsessed with violence as some sort of solution (which it never is). A sad country indeed.
He was committed to a mental health facility for two weeks in the summer of 2023. He’s talked about hearing voices. He’s threatened to shoot up a National Guard station. He and his associates are well-known local right-wing militia gun nuts that “people knew to stay away from.” None of that was sufficient to restrict his access to firearms.
If this is true, then I think it’s safe to say that these shootings aren’t being taken seriously by our government on purpose. I don’t know what the purpose is, but it sure feels like it.
Some of those who work forces are the same that burn crosses.
The best thing about Rage songs is that they’re still relevant after 30 years.
The worst thing about Rage songs is that they’re still relevant after 30 years.
Criminals On Patrol
Criminals On Patrol
The GOP benefits from these attacks in my view, especially when they’re in power. It makes it impossible for the news to cover the reprehensible things they do when mass murders happen every week.
:(
If you’re terrified of being shot you won’t mind having armed police everywhere.
But that’s why I’m terrified of being shot
The only way to assuage your fear of being shot is to arm more people.
I think you’ve got this reversed
The only way to assuage your fear of arming more people is to be shot.
So true!!
To arm more police people, that is. Not ordinary people. Most people in the world have some degree of mental instability, and humans are too quick-tempered and unable to control their impulses. I do not want such people armed with guns at all.
did you drop this? “/s”
Ok, so I’m not crazy.
Well that sounds alarming, but in Mexico they do have armed police everywhere and the citizens actually feel safer. I don’t wish for a dystopian “big brother” world either, but with so many mental people abusing their gun rights and killing others, that is looking more and more like a not so implausible possibility. Frankly, I’d rather have police armed and everywhere than most lay people running around, pulling a gun every time someone looks at them funny or gives the them wrong order at McDonalds.
That feels true when goverment’s response is simply, “give your hopes and prayers.” That all sounds good, but does nothing to solve the problem - the next mass shooting is just days away, and possibly will even make this halloween one of the deadliest in history.
I know, and I knew this kind of background would emerge for him. All of these things SHOULD have been enough to restrict his access to firearms. But, on top of all this, he was living in a family “compound” (according to one neighbor) with family members who were known “gun nuts.” (his words not mine). It seems like he as an accident just waiting to happen, and no one cared enough to intervene.
I don’t even really care about guns. I don’t like them and wish there were far fewer of them, but if reducing the number and availability of guns is off the table, there’s still plenty of room to work – and if this political conversation had even one shred of honesty, we’d be working even with that constraint.
Even in gun policy, there’s so much reform we could make to reduce danger that doesn’t impact someone’s ability to own a gun. For example, universal registration, repeal the Dickey amendment and fund research, impose strict liability to gun owners for crimes committed with their guns.
And most people seem to support red flag laws and universal background checks, but for some reason we can’t expand those either?
Not to mention that it is a simple matter of fact that the US can and does ban all kinds of arms. And, aside from a tiny lunatic fringe, no one really thinks it is an issue. You can’t just have and bring with you a fighter jet, a tank. You can’t open carry explosive ordinance. You can’t go to a gun show and buy chemical WMDs or bio-weapons. You can’t drive around with a full machine gun mounted to the flatbed of your 3-ton pickup. We have rules that are uncontentious, and the idea that maybe some types of modern guns should be in the same category is fiddling with a line in the sand.
And guns are only a small part of the picture. We need poverty intervention and social welfare. We need consent-based policing and the better training that comes with it. We need to fix our urban design so people have better third places and are less isolated from one another. Yet if you try to do anything like this, the same people that fetishize guns will absolutely refuse to even think about it and will indeed try to roll back what does exist to make the problems worse.
At the end, it’s a very two-sided debate. One side wants to test and try changes to make things maybe even just a bit better. The other refuses to do anything and would like for it to even be a bit worse.
Thank you. “Ban guns” is a knee jerk reaction that clearly doesn’t get anywhere. Red flag laws sound nice, and I think mental health is a huge common factor in these shootings, but they lower the standard for taking away a constitutional right. Imagine if you could remove any right just as easily by shortcutting due process. I’m reminded of the false “me too” accusations that destroyed lives on several occasions. By the time it gets walked back the damage is done.
The justice system has systems in place for people who are dangers to themselves and others, but the burden of proof is higher. It can be changed to act quickly but it needs more people working those cases to meet that burden of proof.
But yeah I agree that in the meantime removing people from isolation is huge. People need to see that there is more than what the algorithm serves you and that the extreme fringes are just that. They don’t represent millions of people just living their lives in more reasonable parts of the political spectrum.
“if only Americans were smarter” we can just leave it at that. This fucking country is full of idiots who will never do any good in this world because they’re too stupid to even know where to start
And it’s also a country full of corruption. Make no mistake, American poltiicians are EVERY BIT as corrupt as any third-world politician has ever been. The NRA lines their pockets with money soaked in the brains and blood of children, so of course they look the other way whenever this kind of shooting happens. They get paid millions a year to look the other way. And if I’m honest, I’d probably do so also. I’m only human, and very corruptable.
Wait, did it happen again?
Last night, Lewiston ME.
old news, there’s been another in Samson County, NC today.
The US media should save time and report on days when mass shootings don’t happen.
If they did they’d have nothing to report at all. I love that screenname, by the way - i think i’ll name my dog that.
Ad revenue would bottom-out from a dearth of clicks.
They need to report on stuff that actually happens.
Yeah, yesterday unfortunately.
Shit… Sorry guys, don’t know what to say…
A new day has come in the US, hasn’t it?
Since our general discourse has gotten so stupid: I did the math, and this was a Maine 9/11
It will never be prevented in a nation where the mindless masses, spoon fed by propagandist media propped up by an oligarchy they flock in support of, continue to inflict mass poverty and anxiety on the population. People need to wake TF up and start blaming the billionaire and ruling elites that are let off the hook every time. When the fuck are they going to give us healthcare? When the fuck are they going to stop dancing on the backs of the population while their victims struggle to feed and house themselves?
Were it only so simple. Personally, I think that there are other causes, and that the oligarchy is as much a symptom of the disease as its cause. I saw a pithy comment on another post recently that the United States is the largest PvPvP… MMO in history. That is, we are a hyper-individualistic society, and we don’t do social connections and group solidarity well, if at all. Even our government social safety net is mostly holes, and designed to wear down and humiliate people who need it. Each person, or family, is on their own, sink or swim, and that’s a huge cause of the anxiety that grips, not only the poor, but everybody who’s not super-rich.
It also means that there’s nobody to extend a hand to people who are struggling, either to lift them up when they’re hurting, or restrain them when they might threaten the community. “Not my problem, Jack. 'Sides, I ain’t got time, got my own grist to grind.” Americans tend to regard fellow humans by default as a threat. You see it in the discussions of 15 minute cities, when people say that they hate other people and don’t want to live near them, or that public transit means getting stabbed, robbed, or raped. And, hell, there’s a whole U.S. political party whose only organizing principle is hate and fear of other people.
We lack the cohesiveness to create a society that benefits all of us, and that has allowed the oligarchy to arise and grow. Of course, they exploit this dynamic to stay in control, but I think that, like mildew, if we just scrubbed them from existence and didn’t address the environment that allowed them to flourish, they’d be right back in no time.
It’s pretty simple. The masses of blue and red idiots support their half of the oligarchical idiot coin and their half of the oligarchical, corrupt, propagandizing media. There will continue to be mass poverty and anxiety inflicted on the population, and continue to be people driven by the madness who lose it and kill others at random. You are a perfect example of the fake progressive refusing to assign responsibility to your masters. Get angry at the right people for once.
And, uh, what will that accomplish, other than raising my blood pressure?
Maybe, I personally believe the guns are also partly responsible. Maybe who knows ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
We also have no public healthcare and healthcare getting worse for the average person by the day. Do you think that could be related? Gun ownership has stayed static, there were a fuck load of AR style weapons in the 80s owned by the same communities of people. The mass shootings are not a symptom of gun ownership, they’re a symptom of a seriously sick population having mass poverty and anxiety inflicted on them by the billionaire and ruling class. The longer this continues to go unaddressed the more disturbed people will be generated and the more violence will occur.
Well, will you ever do anything about healthcare?
No? I thought so.
So begin banning the actual thing people are killing each other with.
They’re not going to give anyone healthcare. Make your own. Cost sharing nonprofits exist. Co-ops exist. Direct primary care exists.
Pathetic. They’ve got you beat down and you don’t even care. This is why you have mass shootings. Everyone is fine with the oligarchy inflicting mass poverty and anxiety on the population. Everyone just needs to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and they can become part of the billionaire class too right? GTFO
I’m not beat down, but I appreciate your concern.
Maybe not billionaire class, but you certainly can become part of the class with healthcare without that much effort without begging politicians to hand it to you (which they are not going to do anytime soon). Although in some sense, we’re all richer than the billionaires of only a few hundred years ago. King Louis XIV’s house was famously covered in human poop because efficient plumbing wasn’t invented yet and everyone just pooped in the hall. Lol
Well that’s a huge problem in my view. You SHOULD care INCREDIBLY about the horrific proliferation of guns.
What scares me most today is that people have this blinder on that keeps them from being able to see guns as the atrocious, and utterly ugly death-dealing devices they truly are. Sure, people can inadvertently kill someone with a car by misusing it while high or not paying attention - people can use bats, chairs, cleavers, knives and other inanimate objects. But there’s a huge difference. Those things aren’t MADE to be lethal weapons. A gun however has only ONE purpose, to create a lethal wound to cause death. It IS MADE TO BE LETHAL WEAPON. PERIOD.
And that should terrify you - but for some reason (and this really is horrifying) it doesn’t. And that really is horrific to contemplate. Guns are not just a small part of the picture. This culture of gun worship and loving the way guns kill and maim things - it’s really the most perverse sort of filth imaginable, it should horrify the LIVING SHIT out of you and all decent people!! ALL DECENT PEOPLE!!
Yes some very mentally disturbed people do fetishize guns, which to me is like fetishizing child rape or necrophilia, only I’d rather have those two than people slobbering over a love of guns - because those two things are fixable. A fixation on guns seems to be only fixable by extreme measures such as shock treatment or incarceration of the individual for life.
We DO need to expand and support red flag laws. But even more so, we need to revolt against the corrupted filth pedalled by the NRA and its folllowers and show gun nuts for the crazy, sick, wanting to kill mentality, the horrid and debilitating illness, that it truly is. There are NO two sides to this debate. You DO NOT get to have it both ways – LOVE GUNS and then be shocked when kids and people on the street get mowed down “just for fun.”
Anyone who loves guns has no right to feel bad about these mass shootings!! The blood of all these kids is on THEIR hands forever.
Comparing it to cars just makes it even more obvious. You need a license to drive one. If your eyesight is too bad, they won’t let you drivr. Your doctor can advise against you driving for many reasons and your license gets revoked.
Also, y’know, cars kill and maim a crazy amount of people and we should be trying to get rid of as many of them too.
I agree, but at the very least, cars aren’t designed with the specific purpose of killing people.
I agree. Let’s put more money into public transport!
Also you need insurance which I think would be great for any gun owner anywhere.
I agree with you on that completely. It just makes sense - which is why it will probably never happen.
The only reason I did is because people always reply, “well cars are deadly too and nobody is trying to ban THEM.” And my point is, cars are not designed to be deadly, in fact, they’re designed with safety features specifically to avoid that happening. Yes they get misused by people who are drunk or going too fast and not paying attention - so why would you give someone who could carelessly turn a non-deadly object into a deadly one, access to a GUN???
I agree, you can take someone’s car away for several reasons, but don’t you dare take their murder devices.
I appreciate the feedback - good point!!
Honestly in this last one I think the proper authorities really dropped the ball. As soon as this guy went into a mental facility he should have been flagged for having guns and steps should have been taken to restrict his access to them. You’re using a very broad brush to paint all gun owners one way when it’s absolutely not the case. Some people take self defense extremely seriously. Look out at human history. Look out at the natural world. Killing is a serious constant in life. If you want to see what people are capable of when one group of people have guns and another doesn’t, look at Israel v Gaza. Look at slavery. Small groups of people can control large groups of people solely for having guns. So coming back to self defense, the gun is the greatest equalizer, unfortunately. I believe in having smart, efficient, and effective gun laws, but at the end of the day I only put 100% faith in myself for protecting myself.
I think everyone I’ve talked to who carries a gun hopes to never have to use it in a life or death situation. I love guns and hate people who use them to kill.
The passive voice in the second sentence is very telling. Who should have flagged him? Who should have taken steps to restrict his access to guns? Who had access to that information in order to put the pieces of the puzzle together, and take action? Our society and government doesn’t have a proactive mechanism to so. It is explicitly not the duty of the police. Our system is reactive; some private citizen could have petitioned a court of law, but who has the time, money, and interest to do it?
Yeah that’s the problem with our current system. My nephew has spent time in juvenile facilities for bringing weapons to school. He’s been in trouble for SWATing people and also for stalking a girl. He’s struggled with homelessness after burning bridges with every family member he has, mostly due to him not taking his medication to help with his mental health. He’s been known to sell or trade his medication for drugs.
At one point, he mentioned that he was thinking about getting a gun. In my mind, he hits every red flag I can think of for a person who should NOT be allowed to have a gun. So I looked into what it would take for me to get him flagged or put on some sort of “do not sell to” list. You’d think with his history, that’d be a fairly straightforward process right?
Nope. It’s damn near impossible. I have to go to court and swear an affidavit that says he’s an immediate risk to committing harm. Then I have to continue to do so once every few months, indefinitely. People always ask, “Why didn’t someone prevent this from happening?” The answer is really simple. Since owning a gun is a constitutional right, the systems in place to prevent someone from having a gun are extremely difficult to successfully navigate. I wish that just once, the family of a mass shooter was interviewed afterwards and told the media as such. Maybe that would make a difference? I doubt it.
That’s the problem I have with red flag laws. They simply shortcut the due process when really that system itself can and should be improved.
My worry is that false positives will lead to innocent people having rights taken. I know many are lucky enough to not give a shit about guns but what if it was any other right? Press, religion, etc. If people are getting constitutional rights taken I don’t want it to be on a whim, especially if that shit is permanant. Even if it gets walked back it can cause a lot of harm, like false “me too” accusations from a few years ago.
Good points, and I think there were many people along the way who could have flagged him and made sure he was monitored, especially since the guy had spent six weeks in a mental facility, and was living in a compound of gun hoarders, and had family who knew he was going through mental problems.
It sounds like the whole community knew, given the reports that everybody in town knew to avoid the guy. It’s just our society and legal system makes it everybody’s responsibility to deal with it, and near-impossible to actually do anything useful, which in practice means it’s nobody’s responsibility. Kind of like climate change, or car crashes.
I mean, there are states that will deny someone a firearms license if they have been to a mental facility within a certain period of time. Even after that amount of time is up, you have to take a psych eval before being able to reapply for the license. So, the way I see it, what I’m saying isn’t too far off from being implemented.
Yeah, it’s not impossible, nor necessarily all that difficult. States just need to make it somebody’s job, and set up a system that funnels them the information about troubled people, and gives them the resources and authority to act on it.
I guess it’s easier to legislate guns away.
This was well written thanks
deleted by creator
This isn’t the only nation where this regularly happens, not by a long shot.
Yea, there’s also, hum… that place… where… what was it called ?
Here’s one I found from this year that took about 25 seconds to find.
