Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8jo5xu wrote

more info on the shooter. his prior FELONY with a firearm was reduced to a single misdemeanor, but was still prohibited from possessing firearms

47

Jeepdog539 t1_j8jqjwu wrote

And people don't see that as a problem. By all means lets make new laws rather than enforcing the ones that are already on the books. I can only imagine the field day that our idiot senators are going to have with this.

26

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8jrkxn wrote

Most people don’t understand the concept that a criminal will not obey any additional laws if he isn’t already obeying the existing laws. And laws are pointless if they aren’t enforced. Both of these can be true.

14

EarthExile t1_j8nvcyr wrote

So the only real solution, as has always been obvious, is to collect and destroy guns on a massive scale

−7

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8ogzzj wrote

Who’s gonna collect them? Destroy them? (Because I know it wont be YOU lolololol) If it’s the military or police, wouldn’t that make us a fascist state?

6

EarthExile t1_j8ohj1w wrote

Fascism is much more complex and specific than that, but yeah it would definitely require a repeal or reinterpretation of the Second Amendment to ever solve American gun violence. As long as we imagine "a well regulated militia" to really mean "any swinging dick who may desire to inflict high tech violence" we'll never be able to improve the situation.

−10

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8ohu0b wrote

So police and military should have all the guns? Did you forget what happened in 2020? There’s 450 million guns in circulation and less than 200 shootings per year. That’s hardly the issue.

If you want to disarm people; you should do it. Don’t send police after people, be the example. Start with gangs and criminals first

9

EarthExile t1_j8ojkm3 wrote

200 shootings? Cops alone kill a thousand or so people a year in America, that number is ridiculously low

−7

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8oye4r wrote

So you want cops to be the only ones with guns when they confiscate guns from civilians? Sorry just trying to understand your logic..

3

EarthExile t1_j8oyp6s wrote

I don't think most cops should carry guns either. Plenty of civilized countries manage that way. Just imagine a world where cops aren't prepared to instantly kill people because they don't have to assume everyone's armed to instantly kill them first.

−2

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8ozgb4 wrote

You’re describing a utopia. Those don’t exist. Gangs will still have their guns, so will cops. So again I’ll ask, what is your logic? Disarming law abiding citizens won’t solve the police killing civilians issue OR the gang violence issue. If other countries have “solved” this issue, why do they still have murders ? Rapes? Crime ?

Edit more importantly how are YOU going to disarm cops?

5

EarthExile t1_j8ozu2j wrote

It does not take utopian ideals to attempt to solve problems. Just the will to try.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country

−1

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8ozy6p wrote

Ok but you still haven’t answered how YOU are going to disarm civilians ? Are you going to personally disarm the police once civilians are disarmed?

Gun ownership is banned in Brazil and Venezuela. How are their gun crimes so high? Could it be gangs and cartels?

2

EarthExile t1_j8pb5xo wrote

You hone in on one of the few countries with significant gun violence like ours, as if the existence of other violent countries proves America can't achieve something. To do this, you look past most of a planet where the problem is much less severe. Did you realize you were doing that?

Do you think there are not gangs and cartels and lunatics in these places?

1

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8pd6qf wrote

So when are you disarming the cops?

You know the Nazis took all the guns away right? Right..??

2

EarthExile t1_j8ptj1x wrote

No they didn't. The Wiemar Republic had stricter gun control laws. When the Nazis took over, they loosened the regulations for Party members. They only disarmed the specific groups they hated.

It helps to be familiar with history before you get all shitty and sarcastic about it. A cursory search reveals that you're talking out your ass, which means you put even less effort than that cursory search into justifying your belief. Or you looked up Nazi gun control, saw that what you believe isn't true, and just lied to me, hoping I wouldn't know or check.

Does it matter what's true? When I show you a map that shows a hundred countries without our gun violence problem, does it really make sense to keep acting like solutions are impossible?

Do you feel you're being honest?

0

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8q1y6s wrote

Who does the police hate? You said police are racist and willing to kill anyone without reason. Yet you support police being the only ones with the guns.

Even Marxists believe in the human right of self defense. What are you?

When are you gonna come take my guns?

2

EarthExile t1_j8qszss wrote

You're now telling me I said things I haven't said. This is all in writing. It's all still there. You can't just lie about absolutely everything, people are going to notice.

1

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8r9nfs wrote

When are you coming for my guns?

1

EarthExile t1_j8raiz8 wrote

Right, so we've established that your arguments are worthless, you lie constantly, and you won't engage when called on those things. What you're left with is an implicit threat of violence. Cool. And people wonder why so many Americans shoot people.

1

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8rpp30 wrote

When are you coming for my guns? You want citizens disarmed, you should be the one to disarm them.

Instead you’ll just hide behind the police lol

You can’t bitch and whine about police violence and then say they should be the only ones with guns.

1

9millidood t1_j8opogp wrote

Criminals will still find ways to smuggle firearms in so that wouldn’t do anything except keep only CRIMINALS armed. I don’t think that’s what you want. You can’t group armed law abiding citizens who are not harming innocent people in the same group as deranged mass shooters who are clearly criminals.

1

SkitariiCowboy t1_j8pxyrt wrote

Officers, non compliant citizens, and innocent bystanders will die if this happens.

What is the maximum death toll you would be comfortable with to achieve this goal?

1

EarthExile t1_j8pyguq wrote

Five and a half billion people, but we'll have to do it with rocks and kitchen implements

1

SkitariiCowboy t1_j8q06hh wrote

Ah so you don’t actually care about reducing deaths, got it.

1

Nyrfan2017 t1_j8jsct6 wrote

Just curious I don’t know this trying to learn like when he was arrested and prohibited from having guns are all the guns he owned logged in with his lis so they should be able to go get them and know what he has?

7

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8ju68l wrote

He would’ve been prohibited from purchasing firearms from any store, since they’d run background checks and fingerprints. Whatever guns he had prior to the 2019 incidents, he would’ve likely have had to surrendered them.

11

Nyrfan2017 t1_j8kaiio wrote

But what I’m trying to get at is do they know what he has like so he breaks law needs to surrender them but owns 5 guns turns in 2 do the record keep track of that ?

5

WonderChopstix t1_j8lh64d wrote

Every state is different . In CT you are supposed to register your guns if you live here. For other states they don't care. Purchase records are kept but no obligation to register your gun with the state.

5

snackdrag t1_j8n5nwj wrote

There's no CT gun registry or registry requirement. There are background checks for any purchase, and a permit needed to carry or purchase ammo.

1

buried_lede t1_j8lcnkw wrote

The millions of asses in this country have stockpiled even more millions of guns and they leak onto the street. The assault weapons ban helped while it was in force and it should be passed again.

Tired of so many obsessed gun owners.

−4

ShamusTheClown t1_j8mjyym wrote

'Assault weapons' do not make up a significant portion of crime. Less than 5% of firearm homicides, in fact i think its closer to 1% last time i checked.

The thing that worked, here in the state of connecticut, was creating a permit process with an educational requirement, and tying all firearm and ammunition sales to a permit/certificate. You know, a vetting process.

I personally find this whole discussion exhausting, because CT already fixed our gun problem 10 years ago. We haven't had another tragedy since then.

Its other states with loose laws having these tragedies, and they will continue until they get their shit together. We already got our shit together.

3

buried_lede t1_j8nj0x6 wrote

Fine, whatever works.

Murders and mass shootings aren’t the same, but I’m for whatever works. If Connecticut’s law is a success I hope it spreads. I am just so sick of these gun obsessed activists and their promotion of extremely libertine gun laws.

Some states still don’t even have background checks at gun shows, is that still the case? They’re assholes and they’re wrecking the country.

−1

AGK47_Returns t1_j8oo76o wrote

>Some states still don’t even have background checks at gun shows

As much as the media loves to spout out "gun show loophole", the gun show part is more or less irrelevant; It's "private seller vs FFL".

A private sale, in a majority of states, doesn't require a background check. If you want to buy from an FFL, however, you need to go through a background check, and that's federal law. The latter applies even if you are at a gun show, meaning that anyone legally in the business of selling guns has to background check you even if you're a friend or next door neighbor.

And technically private sellers aren't supposed to be selling guns for business/profit, though the interpretation of that is up for debate; rather, they can downsize their collection.

2

ShamusTheClown t1_j8oz4qi wrote

>Fine, whatever works.

Great, then drop the 'Assault Weapons ban' rhetoric, because that did not work, and would not be effective today.

Heres a video about an actually viable gun control strategy, based on actual indicators of who the 'Bad Guys' with a gun are.

You may notice that CT implemented points 1 & 2 to some extent in their Sandy Hook reforms.

1

buried_lede t1_j8lc4od wrote

The assault weapons ban helped ( and no I am not going to debate what an assault weapon is)

It helped, and then it was repealed

−4

[deleted] t1_j8ljrfk wrote

[deleted]

9

buried_lede t1_j8lm5dg wrote

Bullshit

−10

[deleted] t1_j8lo20g wrote

[deleted]

6

AGK47_Returns t1_j8oogd6 wrote

It always is.

"But but killings went down while it was in force!"

Yeah, and they had already been on a downward trend while there is also no evidence to show that it specifically correlates to the banning of any models or features.

2

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8le69j wrote

Data? Statistics? Columbine happened during the assault weapons ban of 94.. Chicago still had a very high murder rate (still does)

2

buried_lede t1_j8lga4y wrote

Yeah, there is a lot of data and statistics. Go to the advocacy groups and see if they post it, or do a search on the DOJ site or Bureau of Justice Statistics

−2

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8lh5b2 wrote

Sure. Head on over to r/dgu and read up on how many times an “assault weapon” is used by law abiding citizens against home intruders or robberies or in instances of self defense.

The problem with the “advocacy groups” you’re mentioning is they are heavily antigun and are quite biased. DOJ and BOJ are saying baseball bats, hammers, knives and then handguns are the leading weapons used in assaults or murders. Hardly any data on assault weapons. And according to the CDC more than 60% of gun related deaths are suicides. How does an assault weapon ban help in these cases?

2

buried_lede t1_j8lhn7f wrote

Oh F off, tutoring me on BJS and DOJ’s opinions. The stats are there and you’re full of it

1

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8liekw wrote

firearms section 77.2% of mass shootings done with handguns, 22.8% with assault rifles

page 3

More than half of gun owners in California die by suicide

more than half of gun deaths are by suicide source: CDC

The original assault weapon ban didn’t even lower violence rates source

3

buried_lede t1_j8ljiaq wrote

Semi automatic weapons and large magazines. Studies of mass shootings found an impact, but existing weapons in the category were grandfathered in and there were other loopholes, then it sunset after only 10 years. We need to pass it again with stricter provisions and enforcement.

I’m tired of the idiots constantly insisting that gun control doesn’t get guns off the streets. Every country that has done it says otherwise and it’s obvious that it would. Will some guns still float around? yeah, big difference though.

2

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8ljy2u wrote

Thanks for not taking a single look at any of the links I provided and instead going back in circles.

There’s over 500 million guns in circulation in the United States. Legally registered. If we counted all of the “illegal” guns, being sold to gangs and criminals, there’s probably close to double that number.

If America were to ban guns and get rid of 500 million of them. There would still be hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of gangs and criminals and psychopaths. Violence would increase especially in cities.

In 2021 there were 42,000 gun deaths and 117 of them were mass shootings and 29,000 were suicides. That means there’s almost 13,000 MURDERS. Murders. In cities, likely to gang violence.

The “every country has done it” rhetoric is getting old. Move there then? Lol

2

buried_lede t1_j8lmwk0 wrote

Fuck yourself, really. You guys don’t care about life. You literally get on your soapbox on every post about victims. Gun posts aren’t enough, you need to make your points over People’s graves and hospital beds too. All about you and your guns. Always know more than everyone else, always sure that nothing will help. Always a thousand self-serving, self-centered arguments that don’t impress anyone - they are dripping with denial. Like: there are more gun suicides than mass shootings. So what? I’m not leaving the country for you either, but thanks for the suggestion. Cute.

2

Rodimusprime8877 t1_j8lnk5z wrote

Except it didn’t. There’s no evidence to support your bullshit claim.

And you’re not going to debate what an “assault weapon” is because it is a completely made up term and debating otherwise would be like debating the existence of the tooth fairy or Easter bunny. Except both of those have more basis in fact.

0

CaseyGamer64YT t1_j8k2wk7 wrote

Great my faith in humanity has dwindled even more now that people are surviving two mass shootings in one lifetime

35

MyGodItsFullOfClowns t1_j8k645o wrote

There was a Columbine survivor at Virginia Tech.

There was a survivor of a Canadian mass shooting at the Aurora theater shooting.

There were survivors of Oxford High(in Michigan) at this shooting.

I think America has a gun problem.

53

bramletabercrombe t1_j8kmpl1 wrote

America has a terrorist problem. It's called the Republican party.

9

CaseyGamer64YT t1_j8ky3rw wrote

god I fucking love the two party system definitely not destroying the country at its core. And honestly I'm rooting for the more moderate ones that are trying to kick the crazies out of their party. There's going to be a split.

−6

bramletabercrombe t1_j8l2hkw wrote

any true moderate republican was primaried out of the party in the last 20 years by Koch. Proof: John McCain was once the most right wing republican member of the Senate. He died the most liberal. He never changed.

16

Jolly_Operation_1502 t1_j8vl32m wrote

You sure it's not a mental health problem? My guns haven't killed anyone.

1

MyGodItsFullOfClowns t1_j8wfu6b wrote

Neither had Klebold and Harris's guns.

Neither had Cho's.

Neither had Husbands.

Neither had Holmes.

Neither had Crumbleys.

Neither had Lanza's.

Neither had McRae's.

Until they did. Your guns haven't killed anyone yet.

2

CaseyGamer64YT t1_j8ksl84 wrote

well also a mental health and 24 hour news media. [this video shows a seldom spoken side] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3VQULyT390&ab_channel=AlternateHistoryHub) banning guns won't magically stop school shootings. I know I'm gonna sound like a pessimist but we might have to start accepting this as normal.

−2

Nyrfan2017 t1_j8ktm7k wrote

We have a lack of respect for human life … but yes mental health is a huge issue along with the 24 hour news the nut jobs with pods casts that tell people what’s so wrong with everything all the time … people need to shit off news even get off social media and I think a lot of people will be happier humans

8

AdHistorical7107 t1_j8kvisu wrote

Yep, here we go. Deflection.....

5

CaseyGamer64YT t1_j8kxh7j wrote

I'm not saying guns are one of the problems. It's just not the only problem. I'm all for gun control within reason. I don't want people to take my guns whenever I get a gun. If I do get a gun it would be for self defense if the zombie apocalypse ever happens, and shooting targets for shits and giggles. Better than the idiots that only buy guns as a political statement to "own the libs"

0

AdHistorical7107 t1_j8kzm55 wrote

Your interpretation of "within reason" could be vastly different from others. Unfortunately a lot of folks pro 2a here just want to bitch about how getting a Gun will be more difficult. They simply ignore all the grieving parents who have lost their kids, and imo, are enablers. They deflect alot.

11

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8l8bin wrote

And you’re ignoring the fact that you could ban all guns tomorrow but criminals and gangs will still get them.

3

CaseyGamer64YT t1_j8l07hj wrote

idk just don't ban assault weapons. just make sure schizos can't get the assault weapons. AR-15's are neat

−4

Rich-Equivalent-1875 t1_j8l7ldm wrote

One problem are parents who buy their angry kids firearms ( to relate , spend quality time with their kid) it a no brainer, don’t buy your kid a gun to make up for all the times you fxcked up in raising them. Go fishing camping or play video games with them instead.

3

hahaha7890123 t1_j8llei8 wrote

That’s actually a felony. It’s a straw purchase. Yet another example of the gun not being the issue…

1

Ok_Couple_1667 t1_j8mnx7a wrote

There are many ways people gift Guns, kids can have access to them while parents own them, People transfer it to their children as gifts, that’s not a felony if the transfer is done , etc etc

3

buried_lede t1_j8lcsse wrote

There was also a Parkland survivor at Michigan, I heard

1

Jaymez82 t1_j8kjq18 wrote

She’s not a Sandy Hook survivor. She attended a different school in Newtown at the time.

29

HeyaShinyObject t1_j8nbbk1 wrote

Her school was locked down because of the shooting, but she was not in the building where the shooting occurred. NBC30 ran her video at the beginning of the 6:00 news yesterday and ran a clarification a few minutes later.

6

Soggy_Affect6063 t1_j8kedk7 wrote

What’s a ptsd fracture? I’m very familiar with ptsd but never heard of a “ptsd fracture” before. Honest question.

4

Ruca705 t1_j8knlmw wrote

I saw it explained on another post and links to studies were shared. It is a real thing but not very well known. Basically the OOP is saying their back got stress fractures/damage from hunching for so many hours as a kid. PTSD fracture means these fractures can flare up when the survivor is exposed to stress because the body associates the stress with the pain of the original fracture. So even though the bones are healed, the body triggers that pain response on its own.

10

Soggy_Affect6063 t1_j8ksntd wrote

Thanks. The studies I’ve just found on it are…odd to say the least but from what you’ve alluded to, the studies into it are ongoing. By several factors it seems as if it’s just anxiety based that of which can be linked to anything if a flare up occurs. You break your leg in a motorcycle wreck, your bone heals, but now you get worried when you think about riding again and that makes your leg hurt. The pain is psychosomatic. I know, because that happened to me in September of 2012 (ironically). Didn’t know they were classifying it as ptsd because it was something I eventually got over. 🤔

3

buried_lede t1_j8ld8bc wrote

I took it to mean a stress fracture from your body seizing up in terror - injure yourself without realizing it because you’re so scared

1

Soggy_Affect6063 t1_j8let6e wrote

Unless you have a preexisting metabolic deficiency, it’s rare you could get a stress fracture in the l4 and l5 without some kind of high impact trauma. Those bones aren’t easily fractured by just you seizing up. Then again, I’m no doctor and my google research is limited so 🤷‍♂️. Just never heard of a ptsd fracture. Meh, ya learn something new everyday.

−2

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.

3

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.

2

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

2

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...

1

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.

1

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

2

Taurothar t1_j8ncyc3 wrote

One quick Google https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-crime-shooting-guns-illinois-gun-laws/11937013/

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/two-indiana-men-charged-federal-court-trafficking-guns-indianapolis-chicago

1

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...

2

Taurothar t1_j8ngul1 wrote

How is more than half laughably low?

1

Just_Jer t1_j8nhakh wrote

I'm saying 49.8 from Illinois vs the highest at 16.7 from Indiana.

2

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8sd6nq wrote

Indiana should be a war zone with all those “lax gun laws” but it’s not, Chicago is.

0

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.

1

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8sirve wrote

And who commits these crimes?

0

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.

1

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?

0

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.

1

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?

0

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8sd344 wrote

Then why don’t those adjacent places have the same level of violence as nyc LA or Philly?

0

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.

−1

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

1

BadDogEDN t1_j8p21zp wrote

be mad all you want, but if you try to take my rights away, you will be shot

2

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8sd9ox wrote

How did we defeat the British? The Nazis? With hugs and kisses?

2

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

1

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.

1

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

2

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.

1

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.

2

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...

2

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.

1

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.

1

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?

1

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?

2

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8sdg4h wrote

Imagine actually supporting the government leveling civilian communities and being ok with it.

Weird take.

1

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8sdhb8 wrote

Imagine actually supporting the government leveling civilian communities and being ok with it.

Weird take.

1

buried_lede t1_j8lc6en wrote

Has this been verified? I saw this elsewhere on Reddit and couldn’t figure out how to find the TikTok acct

2

auntiemaury t1_j8m6wf2 wrote

I wonder how long it'll take before we have people in 3 separate mass shootings

0

Rich-Equivalent-1875 t1_j8nwpvz wrote

Don’t say that, you will give the media the idea to stage that (not cause it but find someone to say “I was there”)

1

[deleted] t1_j8jj8eq wrote

[deleted]

−1

pd9 t1_j8jjw9q wrote

Well, you’re kind of missing the point then. The message she delivers in her video is that there needs to be change in the way of legislation. It’s time to stop empathizing (read- sending thoughts and prayers) with how it must feel to have lived through this or lived through it twice and start listening, conversing and debating on how legislation is the only real way to make any impactful change to something that everyone and their mother knows is only an issue here in this country.

Kudos to this young adult to have the strength to send a message during a time that is no doubt incredibly painful for her.

−2

AdHistorical7107 t1_j8kvgri wrote

The funny part is that they'll try introducing laws making gun laws stronger (mental health checks, annual registration of guns, etc). Instead, pro 2a will cry foul that they are making it harder to get guns.

Folks, it's clear the enemy here is pro 2a folks. Unpopular opinion, but when we try to save our children, they act like big babies about their guns....

−8

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8l8klt wrote

buddy the gun laws didn’t stop this guy the district attorney turned his FELONY into a misdemeanor.

6

buried_lede t1_j8ldqz5 wrote

Maybe not this guy, but the assault weapon ban helped a lot. The numbers went down. Plus, a lot of shooters these days are inspired by the nonstop political rhetoric about guns and libs and revolution etc.

1

Just_Jer t1_j8mt405 wrote

most mass shootings aren't carried out with rifles so I find your claim a little hard to believe...

1

[deleted] t1_j8lk7qc wrote

[deleted]

6

blumpkinmania t1_j8mz6lu wrote

Yeah. The most jailed country in the history of the world doesn’t enforce its laws.

0

TituspulloXIII t1_j8n8yw0 wrote

But that's not what they are saying.

If the laws were enforced here, the shooter would not have had a gun.

2

blumpkinmania t1_j8n9lrx wrote

Which is moronic because those same people have made it impossible to restrict guns to only “law abiding” people.

1

Soggy_Affect6063 t1_j8l1n04 wrote

They already have mental health prohibitions on gun purchases, and what does annual gun registration even mean and how will that prevent a prohibited possessor from committing murder?

4

AdHistorical7107 t1_j8l1y2n wrote

Sorry, a question on an application isn't working.....

Same way you register a car. You register your gun...

Imagine if these safeguards were in place in texas....

🤷

1

WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8l8nzx wrote

Gang members, drug dealers, and criminals won’t register their guns bro. You’re insane if you think they will lmao

5

Soggy_Affect6063 t1_j8l3imn wrote

You didn’t answer the question. Same way registration doesn’t stop someone from speeding, driving while drunk, or committing vehicular manslaughter.

You’re proposing disqualifiers that are already in place but still don’t stop these kinds of criminals so again, how would registration prevent this?

The event in Texas could’ve been prevented by a locked door amongst other things so…

4

AdHistorical7107 t1_j8l95ui wrote

A 18yr old, on his 18th birthday, brought a gun and shot up a school.

You're the problem here.....

I can't help your little brain. Good night

0

Soggy_Affect6063 t1_j8lcj3a wrote

Oh great, insults during a discussion over an issue. That’ll get me to see your point. /s

Yes, an 18 year old legally bought a rifle (and also went through the same federal background check that every legal firearm purchase has to go through in the US) WHICH WAS REGISTERED TO HIM! So how would that “safeguard” that was already in place have prevented him from going ape and committing murder?

Yet I’m the problem here? I didn’t commit murder. But thank you for proving to everyone that instead looking at the situation objectively, you prefer to let your emotions, rather than logic, govern your response. I’m the problem? What have you done to protect anyone from gun violence outside of complain on reddit about something you obviously know nothing of?

3

buried_lede t1_j8ldkem wrote

You could be mentally healthy and shitty about locking up your gun or not recognize your kid who you shoot with has problems. I just think the gun lobby wants to pawn this off on mental illness.

4

bent_peepee t1_j8l1rvu wrote

what law do you propose that would have stopped this, in your expert opinion?

2

AdHistorical7107 t1_j8l23u3 wrote

Just about every law that was proposed that was rejected by pro 2a folks and GOP.....

1

Spider_J t1_j8lc6mv wrote

There's so many, you shouldn't have any problem naming one.

1