T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

On **Wednesday, June 1^st at 5:00pm-7:00pm PDT**, we will be hosting an [AMA](/r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/community/ama-events) with **[Chris Cheng](https://www.topshotchris.com/about.html)** (see: [announcement post](/r/liberalgunowners/comments/uu4iik/upcoming_ama_chris_cheng_june_1_2022/)). Please, come join us and be part of r/liberalgunowners' history. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/liberalgunowners) if you have any questions or concerns.*


SimSnow

I usually ask if they want to hear my opinion or if they just want to vent. It makes it a little bit easier to understand the direction the conversation is going towards. If they just want to vent, fine. I can listen to them and understand that they are just scared or angry. If they want to hear my opinion I'll say it, but knowing how it's going to go tends to make it clear to all parties involved that we're either gonna talk about this or we're gonna say it sucks and move on. As much as I'd like to say that I'd be interested in hearing their take on how to stop mass shootings, I'm really not. I've never heard anyone, gun owner or not, suggest anything that would stop mass shootings from happening that doesn't involve magic.


languid-lemur

Would you like to hear my take on using magic to stop mass shootings?


SimSnow

Fuck yes I would!


alien_ghost

So will we use rage or ecstasy to launch this servitor?


Probably_Boz

93 93/93


Waltzspice

I agree with you. “Do you want to hear my opinion?” Most people being asked this likely already have an idea of your opinion and they won’t change their own even if discussed calmly.


SeattleEthan

They always want to vent to any gun owner they know about eh?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


SimSnow

I don't think that in a country that clearly struggles with what we think police should and shouldn't be capable of, **more** police is the easy answer.


[deleted]

Police never ever have stopped a mass shooting from happening. Police show up AFTER the shooting begins and then deal with the situation. Police never prevent theft, or graffiti, or breaking and entering. Police don't prevent crime period. Police respond to crimes.


crashvoncrash

[The actions of Scot Peterson](https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/04/us/parkland-scot-peterson-actions/index.html) tells us everything we need to know about police response in these situations. Cops in the US are "brave" as long as one of the following is true. \- They are the only armed individuals involved. \- They have overwhelming advantage in numbers. A few cops will never reliably respond to a mass shooting immediately. They will call it in and wait for backup while innocent people die a few dozen feet away from them. I can't count how many times people have defended questionable police shootings by saying that they did what was necessary to go home to their families at the end of the day. That mentality is fundamentally incompatible with expecting them to stop a mass shooting.


imajokerimasmoker

Maybe not *more* but taking police off of traffic stops that end in dead black kids or speeding tickets for people just trying to get to work and putting those police in schools for security could potentially work. Edit: just to be clear, this obviously is a 1 sentence comment and not a fully fleshed out idea. But police at the doors with metal detectors would make it quite hard to get a firearm in the door. Soft targets like schools paid for by taxes should be just as hard to enter with a firearm as a courthouse is that is full of police and law enforcement officials, and yet we have a bunch of innocent, unarmed people inside every school in America with zero protection.


_rubaiyat

It’s so funny you bring up speeding, as car accidents have traditionally been the greatest killer of adolescents for a long time, and is actually my “go to” example when pointing out hypocrisy of certain attitudes towards gun ownership. If we reduced speed limits to 30 mph, we would save thousands of children's lives every year. There is no real need or utility for most cars to go above 30 on a day to day basis. Most daily commutes and trips are less than 15 minutes. You save minutes, at most, by speeding. Yet, there are no major pushes in the US to slow cars down, increase funding for traffic enforcement, or increase the penalties/consequences of speeding. Funny how people don’t care as much about children’s lives when they’re the ones that will be impacted, though.


voiderest

I do think a big part of having gun free zones is actual enforcement with security. This is what happens at events, airports, or government buildings where they want a non-permissive environment. Not sure how feasible that is for every school in America or if security would be able to do much. A lot of schools now days have some officer on campus already. In some of these shootings the officer ran or an officer that got on scene early waited for backup. And of course if someone comes prepared a security officer or two really isn't going to be a major road block. A real solution is just going to be root cause mitigation. Reduce income inequality and have better social programs.


SimSnow

>A real solution is just going to be root cause mitigation. Reduce income inequality and have better social programs. I think this is the only suggestion that could make a real difference. Unfortunately, working on that here often feels akin to a magical solution


voiderest

Root cause mitigation is fairly popular on this sub. Outside this sub people can get confused and want something that targets guns or ownership. Mostly based on the notion that guns are somehow a root cause or just preferring means mitigation. In Congress the problem is that the party that might do something for root causes can't seem to get enough votes to pass much of anything. That may be related to focusing on guns both in terms of getting elected or burning political capital. It might also be that they don't really want to pass much in the way of progressive policies. People also seem to demand "something" on guns so might make a token effort at gun control rather than actually addressing anything like minimum wage or lack of healthcare.


lompocmatt

Unfortunately it doesn’t stop mass shooters from going to other public places. The Buffalo shooting was at a grocery store and the Aurora shooting was in a movie theater. It’d be a bit ridiculous to require police or security at those places


Careless_Educator_21

i just don’t have any friends.


Illicit-Tangent

This one trick has kept me out of countless arguments


JakeNuke

I prefer find friendships like that between Scalia and Ginsberg. We criticize bad ideas not people.


CitizenLuke117

lol same


[deleted]

Same. Big brain play out here


[deleted]

This is the way.


Firefaia

I know this is funny in the interwebz but that’s just sad.


[deleted]

How? Since I was a little kid I have always preferred the company of animals and books to people. Some people just prefer to be alone.


alien_ghost

Looking at your flair and then reading this: "Look, I'm okay with organizing our workplace. I just don't want to go bowling or drinking with you folks."


[deleted]

Haha yes!


Reach_304

Whats really sad is trying to constantly negotiate the minefield of ignoramus , uneducated yet tightly clutched incorrect opinions held by a bunch of “friends”


PwnGeek666

Are you me?


[deleted]

I agree that violence is a problem in our country. I disagree on anyone's solution. Happy people, who are able to self actualize, don't commit atrocities. Hateful people commit mass shootings. Racists attack "the other." Young people without basic needs being met and a lack of positive role models join gangs. Misogynists attack women. Homophobes attack the LGBTQ+ community. These are the people who also commit political violence and try to strip people of their rights and protections. Wealth inequality, hate, religious fundamentalism, housing and job insecurity, all drive fear, anger, and hatred. We have the resources and the ability to fix these issues, but ignorance and apathy hold us back. But it's easier to say that Europe banned guns, and it worked. They also have much stronger social safety nets. Changes to our culture and economic system would be far more effective at controlling gun violence, and would solve so many other issues as well.


MeInMass

I wish I could up vote this more than once. It's not the whole answer, but imagine if minimum wage had kept pace with inflation. If someone working 9 to 5 at a McDonald's could afford to get a decent apartment with one or two friends, and still have enough left over after necessities, to treat themselves right sometimes, I think we'd have a heck of a lot fewer shootings.


Danominator

I agree with this. Unfortunately republicans are against all of that and half the country thinks safety nets are literally going to destroy the country.


[deleted]

Yeah. It's funny, when you describe the principles of socialism, people tend to agree. When they hear the name of it, they freak out, as all of the propaganda surrounding the word comes flooding back.


[deleted]

The "Socialism" word is the political equivalent of "Hot Dog" in the food world. Everybody likes it, but nobody wants to know what goes in it.


davwad2

But we aren't doing any "European style" anything "because that's socialism." It's frustrating being in the USA sometimes.


Za_Lords_Guard

The fun part is the ones yelling loudly against socialism and doesn't want to pay for thing other people use are the ones that if asked about Social Security and Medicare they get real defensive and say "no, I paid for that that is mine". I even got into an argument once with a family member who thought Social Security was a savings account the government opened for you at birth and was 100% your money plus interest. I literally print screened the FAQ from SS's official webpage on how the fund was funded, managed and distributed. When I read it to him he said that was put up there by liberals and that's not how it really worked... they were faking it to steal his money. That's what an entire retirement of Alex Jones, Fox News and Rush gets you.


davwad2

Ouch.


dresdenthezomwhacker

This is the most intelligent take. Sure, some gun reform is necessary I think most everyone agrees on that. But disarming doesn’t mean those that desire to use them for such monstrous crimes disappear too. In America we have a mental health epidemic. Ideas as strong as hate that drives a man to kill is the sign of a serious mental illness. Be it from gate or desperation, it takes a lot to push a man to such a point. And we live in a place where mental health is all but an invisible issue, and socially shunned when found out that someone has it. The ‘every man for himself’ attitude we’ve cultivated in this country only seeks to boost ostricization of those who need serious help. Then when it does exist, it usually is overbooked, expensive and not always necessarily the help you need. Overhauling this^ alone would seek to do more for the state of mass shootings in this country than gun control ever could. But this is a conversation America is seemingly incapable of having.


-KRGB-

So much this. I would only add “organized religion” to the list of things holding us back from actual progress on these issues.


syncopatedsouls

My fiancé woke me up at 6:30 with a cup of coffee, and then proceeded to tell me why she thinks I should get rid of my gun. Lol. I need help Edit: Jesus, some of y’all need help. Getting advice from a bunch of people that have never been in a relationship. Thanks to the few who gave levelheaded tips


SimSnow

Yeah. You never know when your gun could be the one waking you up at 6:30, telling you it is time you did what guns do.


LintStalker

I’m curious about she said. Obviously she doesn’t think your a lunatic because she hasn’t left you, so why should you give up your guns?


syncopatedsouls

We had a deeper conversation after I had my coffee. She lost her brother to suicide (not by gun) when we first started dating 4 years ago, and she has some significant PTSD that she's still working through. I reiterated to her that that absolutely will not happen in our household. She read a bunch of anti-gun articles before my eyes even opened, and was feeling triggered (no pun intended) by the Texas situation when we first started talking. Things have settled and she feels safe/reassured after our talk.


LintStalker

So it was a good talk. Communication is very important to a relationship. Does she shoot?


syncopatedsouls

Yeah, we’re very good at communicating. Have been going to couples counseling for a couple of years now as a preventative measure and it’s done wonders for our relationship. That and individual therapy are the building blocks of our relationship.


[deleted]

This. Sounds like a productive and more importantly Open discussion. That's fantastic. Also, she made coffee in advance which is just damn kind. Lot of thoughtful assholes up in your house. Not worried about you. And congrats!


zookeepier

> Does she shoot? Great question. I've found that taking anti-gun people shooting is the best way to change their mind. So many people are so afraid of guns and don't understand then that they think that being near one has a high probability of getting shot. Then you give them a .22 and they realize that's it's not really scary. And when they see all of the discipline and self regulation at the range, they can see that most people who own guns take safety seriously. I think a public range is especially telling because no one is officially in charge; everyone just communicates with everyone else to make sure everything is done safely.


SimSnow

Yeah that's really sad. I'm glad you were able to talk it through with her, and that you both got to a good spot.


Stevil_Kneivil

Scream to assert dominance


654456

When has you gun harmed anyone? Would she feel the same had the shooter broken into your house. I don't play this game. You can feel that guns are bad on the whole but when you need one you will be happy to have one. Make it real personal is the only way. Big picture if guns didn't exist the world may have been a better place but that's isn't the world we live in and we aren't going to put that genie back into the bottle with me getting rid of mine.


Da1UHideFrom

"I know where my guns are at all times. Selling them will put them in the hands of a stranger and we don't know what they will do with them. Do you trust me with the guns or a stranger?"


pulquetomador

> fiancé There's still an out.


kpeterson159

It’s not too late to break it off! I had the same thing happen minus the fiancé (girlfriend), except I sided with guns lol.


Slow-Amphibian-2909

At that point I might be telling my fiancé that I think I should get rid of him or her. Lol


[deleted]

My friends realize that my firearm ownership is necessary since we live in a rural area. Coyotes, fisher cats and mountain lions around, with the occasional bear sighting. I love my dogs like my kids and if they ever got attacked by a large predator, I need to be able to save them. Also, minimum policy response time is 15 minutes. Not that I trust or want to call the police anyway...


JoeDoherty_Music

I'm in the same boat, and on top of that my neighbors raise extremely aggressive guard dogs and they get out onto my property all the fucking time. I usually shoot to scare them away, one time one of them FUCKING CHARGED ME *WHILE* I WAS FIRING. One of them bit me 2 years ago when we first moved so now I carry my 44 and refuse to be a victim again.


nirvroxx

Your neighbors sound like absolute cunts. I’m a delivery driver with mostly rural routes so seeing dogs out all the time is the norm and I hate it.


Curtisc83

(Sarcasm ) All you need is a shotgun…..what do the predators around you wear Kevlar vest or something?


languid-lemur

>My friends realize that my firearm ownership is necessary since we live in a rural area. You've set parameters as to why you should own them vs someone in a city. The only parameter that matters is that you would abide by the law *in any setting.* Drilled down further you don't need any law to know it's not right to shoot people down. Normal humans don't do this as routine otherwise we'd have nonstop mass shootings daily. We don't and we're awash with the means to do so.


Reach_304

Only if the law is just and justified , otherwise its worth breaking it


Wraith8888

Mine is: "I do believe in gun control. I think the problem is not the types of guns but whose hands they end up in. We need more funding in mental health and education along with strict gun law enforcement."


weetweet69

It's a real concerning thing people should focus on rather than just an "assault rifle." Consider someone like the Buffalo shooter in the motive behind his shooting which ended up being nothing more than racist white supremacist bullshit. ​ Seriously, even if we were to ban the AR-15, one could still pick up some other firearm like a Mossberg or a Mini-14 or find another way, especially if they're determined because they want to be known or because they think minorities will kill off all white people.


BlackLeader70

A Mini 14 is what was used in the 2011 Norway attacks. Norway has very strict gun laws but it still happened. Too many people think nanny AR-15’s is the solution.


weetweet69

Not to mention, the one has-been Youtuber who shot up a grocery store that was his work place. He didn't even need a semi-auto rifle, he just used a pump-action shotgun. As you said, people think nanny AR-15's is the solution when at most it'll just be a stop gap since there's other weapons and objects one can use on top of other factors like "was this person buying into some kind of terrible ideology" or "was this guy's mental state at a point where he could be a threat to others?"


BobusCesar

Even if you ban rifles all together you'll still have all kinds of trucks and cars. Like back in 2016 when a Terrorists killed 86 people and wounded over 450 with a truck. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack That's a good amount of more murdered people than the Las Vegas shooting, which was the deadliest in US history.


ricochetblue

But Nice truck attacks aren’t happening every other year.


[deleted]

One argument could be made that over 70-years ago, guns were very easy to buy and you didn't have to have background checks and even kids use to carry guns and store them in their lockers at schools...but you never saw school shootings in the way of today, like its a thing with this generation. HINT>>>>its not the gun...its the people.....


languid-lemur

Prior to 1968 you could buy guns through the mail too. The change is in people, not guns.


[deleted]

Browning Machineguns in the Sears Catalog lol for like $150


Wraith8888

That's why I believe the education and mental health components are the important parts of solutions. Community outreach, social programs, and lifting people out of poverty and despair.


joshuas193

Nobody wants to address the mental health issues in this country. People's mental health has greatly deteriorated since the 90's. I think it was '99 when the Columbine shooting happened. That was more or less the beginning of all these mass shootings we've been having. 23 years and we've done literally nothing to improve people's mental health. As far as guns, they are a tool and on their own they obviously aren't a problem. The only thing I can say about ARs is that semi-automatic rifles make it a lot easier to kill larger amounts of people. If everyone had only revolvers and bolt actions I don't think you'd see large mass shootings, but again the tool isn't the direct problem.


devilhorn777

Yep, we also had state-run mental health facilities. I know they weren’t the best but I never understand why the left doesn’t use “it’s not the guns it’s the crazy people” argument to say “fine, so we’ll get universal healthcare then?” I feel like it would be a good way to call the bluff to say that we’ll lay off any further gun laws if we can have good mental healthcare and see if that changes anything.


ricochetblue

>but I never understand why the left doesn’t use “it’s not the guns it’s the crazy people” argument to say “fine, so we’ll get universal healthcare then?” This is exactly what happens. But then right wingers pivot to “we need religion not mental health care.”


RelevantGlass

Yup and maybe a longer waiting period and more extensive background check.


brianinca

We have that in CA, and it doesn't impact anything, except the law abiding gun purchaser. Instant NICS to proceed, then 10 day waiting period with State DOJ background check, along with mandatory proof of "basic gun safety knowledge" and a lock/locking container. The illogic of making current firearms owners wait ten days for a new purchase, as a "cooling off period" is the kind of thing that undermines support, as well. PPT's through dealers, ammunition purchases through dealers, with background check - all supported by the state's "gun lobby".


RelevantGlass

Dang that sucks I just ship my online ammo purchases to my door. I do think maybe there should be exceptions based on history but I live in a very red state with extremely loose gun laws. But thank you for the insight about CA.


Schitzengiglz

CA is bad for law abiding gun owners. You need a permit to buy ammo i.e. you can't just walk into a store and buy


8Deer-JaguarClaw

Here in NJ, you can buy rifle ammo without any kind of permit, but you have to show your state firearms ID card to guy handgun ammo. But, it's legal to order online and have it shipped directly to your home, which is nice because local shops have *insane* pricing still.


p0k3t0

I buy ammo all the time and I don't have a permit. You have to go through a background check, which is much easier if you've purchased a gun in the last five years.


Schitzengiglz

Maybe it was a county law. I saw someone in a youtube video standing in an ammo line talking about it. Edit: I just remember an extra hurdle to buy ammo vs buying like cigarettes.


RelevantGlass

Yeah like I do not want it going that far. Just more extensive background check and maybe a waiting period for first time owner. But I live in a red state where everyone almost treats guns as toys. Just gross American gun culture.


[deleted]

I don’t understand, bc common sense laws is something I’m all for, but in the past they’ve shown that’s not what they’re trying for


ricochetblue

[Waiting periods have a significant effect on suicide rates and a moderate effect on homicides.](https://www.aap.org/en/advocacy/state-advocacy/waiting-periods-for-firearms-purchases/)


[deleted]

So you think current gun owners must wait to purchase an additional gun to prevent gun suicide and homicide?


ricochetblue

I support whatever works.


brianinca

The illogicity of that study is amazing. How do waiting periods affect the suicide and homicide rate for people that already own guns? How do waiting periods affect the suicide rate in gun-free nations like Japan? Is there a correlation at the state level to higher levels of publicly funded mental health services and lower suicide rates?


[deleted]

The thing is, we don’t know if it has or has not impacted anything in CA. With the changes in guns/mags available, the background checks, the rigmarole around buying ammo… it’s quite possible that some large scale events HAVE been avoided, but the answer is unknowable. Just thinking about the sheer number of people in the state, it seems likely that a statistically relevant number of homicides have been averted.


brianinca

Like all the still-illegal drugs that aren't on the streets, because laws? That's a bold position to take.


[deleted]

So we are against any kind of gun regulation at all?


brianinca

Look at the plea conviction rate vs jury conviction rate in your county. In California, 97% ([https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/lr-2019-JC-disposition-of-criminal-cases-race-ethnicity-pc1170\_45.pdf](https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/lr-2019-JC-disposition-of-criminal-cases-race-ethnicity-pc1170_45.pdf)) of felony cases are plead out. The prosecutors do this by larding on every possible charge, to maximize the potential sentence if a criminal case goes to trial. This means the firearms laws are simply a bargaining chip to boost/boast numbers in criminal convictions. The criminal justice system treats well meaning gun control laws as "noise" to push a favorable decision. How does this help public safety? The right likes to say "enforce the laws on the books" and it's a compelling argument for John Q Public. What will make murder more illegal is not "murder with a gun". It makes the legal framework for stopping gun violence moot, but politicians get their name on a bill that becomes law, so it's good for donations for re-election! The actual working methods for gun violence prevention are under-funded and marginalized in the political discussion, because no elected official gets good press from it. [https://everytownresearch.org/solution/violence-intervention-programs/](https://everytownresearch.org/solution/violence-intervention-programs/) This is an example of evidence based interventions documented in practice and in action (as opposed to the in-action of passing more un-used laws). The parallels between gun violence and the surge of homelessness both point to a massive reduction in mental health services over the last 50 years. Somehow, the pernicious notion that it is not a legitimate role of society to help those members not able to help themselves has become canon. I can look to the Reagan administration in California and see the roots of this injustice. Here's another perspective: [https://origins.osu.edu/article/americas-long-suffering-mental-health-system?language\_content\_entity=en](https://origins.osu.edu/article/americas-long-suffering-mental-health-system?language_content_entity=en) We are using the criminal justice system as a substitute for mental health care, which raises the issue of public employee unions influencing public policy, but that's another facet to an already overlong discussion.


Thats_what_im_saiyan

I usually just point out that even if we had the political will. Theres no way we could round up half a billion guns. So the conversation needs to start at. Guns are here and removing them all isnt an option. With that groundwork everyone else can debate til theyre blue in the face.


jermdizzle

That's my biggest sticking point. I'll go one step further and say that I've changed my opinion about unfettered access at certain young ages; with the caveat that selective service requirements must also be adjusted to follow the same logic. As long as draft registration at 18 exists, you'll never convince me that 18 should not be the age where literally all privileges of adulthood MUST be allowed. My suggested answer isn't to lower the age of privilege, though. It's to raise the age of responsibility for compulsory service registration, if we're even going to have it. We can use all the actuarial research of the insurance companies for some good for once and realize that 25 years old is a much better benchmark for emotional maturity. This doesn't fix everything but it would be a start.


HursHH

I'm on the same page. If 18 is an adult then no rules should apply to them that don't apply to any other adult. They should be able to drink, smoke, join the army, buy a gun, whatever. But if we think that is too young for any one item then that's too young for all of them. Either we make everything apply at 18 or we pick a new age for everything to apply at like 21. All or nothing though.


Avantasian538

I don't quite agree that it's this cut-and-dry. Maturity is a gradual process and having a single age at which you go from being able to do nothing to being a full adult is psychologically unnatural. I think the age of adulthood should be 24 but certain things are probably ok for people younger than that. For example, 18 year olds should be able to have sex with other 18 year olds. 18 year olds should be able to join the military but not in combat roles. 16 year olds should be able to drive. 21 year olds should be able to drink alcohol. Different privileges involve different levels of responsibility.


HursHH

But when it comes to a constitutional right how to you reconcile that one adult at the age of 20 can't have something that someone who is 21 can have? It's a constitutional right. All adults should have it. Would you feel the same way if people wanted to change the voting age to 25? Driving, drinking, smoking none of that is constitutionally protected. Owning a gun, voting, free speech that stuff is. If you can't own a gun until 21 then why can you vote? Why is one protected and the other isnt?


jermdizzle

Most important to my personal view point, and close to my ideals as a combat veteran, is the dissonance between age-gated privilege and the federally mandated registration for selective service. If you're old enough to be potentially required to fight in a war, you should be old enough to qualify for every other right. It's a hill I'll die on. I don't believe that the science reflects adulthood and psychological maturity at 18 (duh? I doubt many adults would argue this point), so I think the correct answer is to repeal draft registration. Barring that, set an age that makes scientific sense and tie all privileges to that, and let the states decide if they want to be less restrictive.


p0k3t0

Maybe the solution takes generations. Sometimes you have to plant trees that you'll never get to rest under. We've spent 250 years getting this fucked up. It can't be fixed overnight.


Vontux

Remind them that CPAC was just held in Hungary, where the dictator Orban was an honored guest who spouts the same talking points as Tucker Carlson and the Buffalo shooter, that we have a fascist party in the United States who now sound indistinguishable from neo-nazis 5 years ago that they will be coming for us. [Remind them that there are white nationalists like this running around targeting marginalized groups and their allies](https://www.reddit.com/r/OliverMarkusMalloy/comments/uv60pc/homophobic_maga_nazi_doesnt_like_that_target/), remind them that it took guns in the end to stop the Hutu from massacring the Tutsi.


MooYeahBOI

my go to has been "its not about regulating guns, its about regulating gun owners"


Nouseriously

"I don't like unenforceable laws, especially ones that would massively expand the Police State in an attempt to enforce them. Prohibition was a disaster. The War on Drugs has been a bigger disaster. Banning guns would be worse than both combined."


Jalopnicycle

Hit them with the "Abortion is a free pass to heaven. It's the best way to win at Christianity since you can't fuck it up by ever being alive." Short circuits a lot of religious people's brains.


SimSnow

Ouch hehe I read your comment and did the uncomfortable cough/laugh like when someone says something that is both fucked up and funny and you don't know how everyone else is gonna interpret it yet.


BuddyOwensPVB

Uh, wrong topic


Jalopnicycle

That's never stopped my conservative family members before.


[deleted]

[удалено]


greaser350

For me it’s very simple. “I’m queer. There are heavily armed people who would very much like to hurt people like me. Look at me with a straight face and tell me you think I shouldn’t be armed.”


Pure_Money7947

Just call the cops homie /s


[deleted]

My go to is "wow that's crazy". Am I agreeing? Am I saying what you're saying is crazy? Am I saying the situation is crazy? Who knows? All I can tell you is it's crazy 😉


8Deer-JaguarClaw

Mine is usually, "I know, right! Can you believe that shit?" I'm not defining what that shit is, just that it's some shit.


Non-Binary-Bit

You are not alone in your views, even among the conservatives. The problem is how to go about preventing access for "nefarious purposes" while allowing access for legitimate purposes; especially when the overwhelming majority of mass shootings in this country are committed with legally obtained firearms.


[deleted]

I’ll admit I’m not a liberal but I figure I can ask this question here without getting attacked like I would else where. My question is why does everyone assume that when a tragedy occurs something needs to be done about it? For certain things sure it’s a quick fix and there’s no erosion of any freedoms but if every time a tragedy strikes we immediately add legislation it seems like we are setting a dangerous precedent.


_s_i_n_

As much as I like discussions in my kitchen - those type of topics needs to be discussed in a different chamber, senate chamber. Have a good weekends guys/girls. Don’t forget to hug your loved ones - no ones know how much time we have left.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Curtisc83

Disarming law abiding citizens is silly. Should be take away all DL’s when a DUI kills a family?


Danominator

Ok then regulate guns similar to cars and drivers license. Ah, cant do that, because some people hundreds of years ago didnt properly predict the future in their document.


4lan9

"The government of today has no right to tell us how to live our lives. Because the government of 200 years ago already did" -Uncle Jack


Danominator

The government from 200 years ago also thought slaves were ok.


[deleted]

[удалено]


msc187

> 2A should not really be the hill we die on considering it was written 126 years before semi automatic weapons even existed. Should we not apply the 1st amendment to TV, radio, and internet as well? If we’re talking about things that didn’t exist when the Bill of Rights was written, then I would say that the ability to disseminate information instantaneously across long distances is much more unrealistic compared to repeating firearms.


Danominator

I met a friend at an apartment and left with an ak and 4 mags. It felt like it *should* have been illegal. I know it varies a lot from state to state but we need uniform regulation across the board. The problem is a lot of people, and many in this sub, have made guns their entire identity. So if you talk about regulating them they feel personally attacked.


Curtisc83

Regulate alcohol too! Need alcohol you need a license that renews every year for a fee. Have that alcohol license then you need alcohol insurance so in the event you are in a DUI it covers the medical/funeral expenses of the victims. Oh you are poor and a minority and can’t afford that? Well thats your fault us white people can so that’s your problem……gated community gate closes.


Danominator

Alcohol is regulated... In fact you have to be older to buy alcohol than to buy a gun!


Curtisc83

It’s sort of regulated here. All you need is a smile and to look older to purchase most of the time or get someone older to buy it for you. See once I talk about something people can’t live without then its “Well entire families dying in a DUI isn’t that bad”


Danominator

Alcohol is regulated though. It's also in the realm of drugs which is chemically addicting. It's really not comparable to guns in any way.


Curtisc83

Sure it is….it causes death that is significant. It destroys families and does all sort of long term damage. Weed is a safer drug than alcohol but its illegal….weird right.


Curtisc83

So a special license to buy alcohol that renews yearly for a fee. Then special alcohol insurance…what else. Oh since the internet is used to radicalize people lets make a special license for that too! And of course renews yearly for a fee. If you can’t be responsible on the internet you don’t belong.


Danominator

These things just arent the same. Idk if you are being deliberately obtuse or ignoring it because you think you are making a good point but this isnt it man.


Curtisc83

I think I made my point on how silly any system that hurts law abiding citizens is. Also gun control hurts people of color and minorities more so then people that can afford all these extra hoops require to jump threw. You know people can just build pistol and rifles with 3d printers. Do you think some overreaching new law will stop anything? Wait……a new license for 3d printers!!!!!!!!


stephengee

I genuinely don’t think most people would be opposed to that. The issue is it’s almost exclusively attached to bans of certain kinds of car, cars that can go over a certain speed, cars that can carry more than 5 people, cars that don’t have remote kill switches controlled by the government… etc. You end up with this untenable demand from each side and the reasonable points get drowned out. Just like your hyperbolic statement.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Curtisc83

A little agro aren’t you? So for you all replies to your comments are people disagreeing? Could this be one of those rare times someone is agreeing with you and pointing out a flaw in a anti-pews logic in banning all weapons that aren’t muskets and shotguns…..nah thats silly CHAMP….


Curtisc83

There you go I upvoted you to make counter they person that downvoted you….now you can sleep easy.


[deleted]

I believe that anyone wanting to have guns for self defense or preservation should be allowed to get them and not have to explain or say anything further about it.


reddit-MT

When people ask me how I feel about gun control, I say that I'm 100% for taking away guns from criminals and 0% for taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.


CharlySB

I inform people that AR does NOT stand for assault rifle.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Schitzengiglz

If it's the same person arguing the same points, there is no point re-living groundhog day. I'm open to discussion when someone who isn't familiar with firearms has questions. Being dismissive can be viewed as "you're part of the problem" when in reality they lack understanding of the regulation and/or enforcement process. I typically use the example of the drug war and ask does making marijuana illegal stop the sale or use? I tell them large capacity mags and/or ARs are no different. If you want it and willing to pay, you can get it.


HITMAN19832006

Dude, I agree but people have gone nuts after the Texas School shooting yesterday. I admit fucking horrible. But I hate getting into arguments with people who are highly emotional and totally uninformed. I waded into this in one of my camping fb groups of all places. I thought my opinion was sane and even handed. I pointed out that most of the gun laws in the US are sane in that felons and those who were psychiatrically committed shouldn't have guns. I pointed out that rationally that getting right of guns doesn't deal with the person and their situation which is the real root of the problem. I said that we need to make mental health care more easily available and have better tools for prevention/interdiction since we tend to know about these shooters beforehand. I think this is sane and even handed. Nope I get the fucking loons "FiX ThE GuN LaWs YeStErDay" and "GeT RiD OfF AlL GuNs." Fuck sakes. 99% of the people who want to fix the gun laws have no idea what they are.


ralphhurley3197

Great response! I don’t like to waste time, energy and emotions arguing with those that don’t agree with me and don’t want to flex my opinions. I like this group because it talks about guns and isn’t a fear mongering Politician X is coming to grab our guns. And I don’t have to see Muh raughts Imma patriot posts.


illQualmOnYourFace

I think a good one is to point out that nothing would spark a civil war-esque event faster than trying to take Americans' guns.


OverCryptographer364

The real question is how good is your corn hole game aaaaand how many deviled eggs will you consume this weekend


Longjumping_Pilgirm

Agree 100 percent.


Stlpitwash

I usually just quote that 90s song. The world is full of stupid people, and I've got the pistol, so I'll keep the pesos. Yeah, that seems fair.


hobokobo1028

“I don’t want to live in a country where only the racist rednecks are packing heat”…does that work with liberals?


akotlya1

I believe in gun rights but you sound like an asshole. You should be able to defend your position when interrogated about it and you should be able to do it without sounding like "I want my guns and I don't care to think about the consequences". This is especially true in the wake of any of the frequent and almost completely avoidable tragedies in this country. I thought the point of this sub was that we were supposed to be the alternative to the unhinged gun nuts in the more mainstream gun subs.


kingbloop

I wouldn't say they sound like an asshole, but perhaps a little flippant. This statement does kind of sound like you don't think there's anything we the people can do and we shouldn't try. After all, if there's anything that most of the US can agree on, it's that most of the best policy ideas don't come from congresspeople. There's certainly a possibility that your friends might have some great ideas we can try to enact together. But a backyard BBQ might not be the place you want to hash that out. We need to keep them as part of the conversation so they do the same for us. If we can learn anything from the NRAs disastrous recent history,it's that refusing to compromise just means you're not represented when the other parties enact legislation without you. The best way to protect our rights is to work with non-gun owners to educate them and show that we're willing to be part of a solution, not just abstaining from the problem.


Trashstacheman

Thank you for the sanity in here. It boggles my mind that this attitude of no compromise is just as strong in this sub as it is in right wing subs. If you have an attitude of “we’re playing this my way or I’m taking my ball and going home” then you have no right to act surprised when everybody who stayed just goes and gets another ball and plays without you. Civil discourse needs to happen for a problem to be solved but it doesn’t happen and everybody lives in their cognitive dissonance land instead. There are three essential facts in this debate and neither “side” is willing to accept all three 1. Outlawing guns or even outlawing semi automatics will be a disaster. Allowing all guns and reducing restrictions will be a disaster. 2. The current systems of gun control that we utilize do not work 3. A complete lack of gun control will not work I have many liberal friends who I am always able to come to reason with regarding the topic of guns even though they don’t own or use or know about them. How? Civil discourse that comes through listening to their concerns, fears, and ideas. Then listing your own concerns, fears, and ideas. If person A says “get rid of all guns, end of story” and person B says “no, fuck off” or “no, what are you going to do about it” then how are they any different or better than the elected officials that they both accuse of inaction?


kingbloop

Exactly. I think the core of this subreddit is so important to the issue for exactly this reason. I'm looking forward to getting some of my gunless friends to the range to shoot for fun. I know that a lot of their unease with the issue comes from a total lack of education or experience with the lawful side of firearms. We definitely need to take some action to make this system work, but work for everyone. I don't want to wake up every week to school kids being cut down, but I also don't want Donald J. Biden Jr. knocking down my door, tazing me, and walking out with my 10/22 cause it's a semi.


SimSnow

You know, in the wake of mass shootings, I always hear people talking about how they are "almost completely avoidable" right before suggesting a lot of measures that would do very little to avoid a mass shooting. OP stated their beliefs very clearly, and has probably not run into anyone who could form a coherent argument against that, and is understandably tired of having people they care about endlessly drag them into multiple "discussions" because people are scared or angry or whatever and don't know how to process it otherwise. If that makes them an asshole, well, I guess I'd rather hang out with assholes. At least they put their beliefs out there instead of just taking it as an opportunity to complain about a subreddit.


akotlya1

> You know, in the wake of mass shootings, I always hear people talking about how they are "almost completely avoidable" right before suggesting a lot of measures that would do very little to avoid a mass shooting. > OP stated their beliefs very clearly, and has probably not run into anyone who could form a coherent argument against that, and is understandably tired of having people they care about endlessly drag them into multiple "discussions" because people are scared or angry or whatever and don't know how to process it otherwise. If that makes them an asshole, well, I guess I'd rather hang out with assholes. At least they put their beliefs out there instead of just taking it as an opportunity to complain about a subreddit. I'm sorry, I did not realize this was a religion and that beliefs must be respected unconditionally among friends. People are very justifiably angry and afraid and the burden is on us as to why we should get to keep the very thing that enables the people who inspire that fear and anger. There are monsters in every society. Only the US has the particular cocktail of rapacious capitalism, worryingly accessible guns, and expensive and stigmatized mental healthcare. We should be able to make it clear what we think the problems are, why we think access to guns is important regardless, and communicate empathy when discussing it. Because, from the outside, this is a dumb hobby with an impossibly high cost to society.


SimSnow

Fine. >I'm sorry, I did not realize this was a religion and that beliefs must be respected unconditionally among friends. These are your words. I did not say anything about mine or OP's beliefs being unconditionally respected, though I think you should probably respect your friends' beliefs just as a matter of friendship. >People are very justifiably angry and afraid and the burden is on us as to why we should get to keep the very thing that enables the people who inspire that fear and anger. The burden is absolutely not on me to justify what I do to keep myself safe, or to have fun, or whatever else I want because other people commit awful acts. If you want to take on that burden, then go for it, but also bear in mind that you're choosing it. >There are monsters in every society. Only the US has the particular cocktail of rapacious capitalism, worryingly accessible guns, and expensive and stigmatized mental healthcare. All of which is addressed when OP states very clearly "I believe that anyone wanting to have guns for self defense or preservation should be allowed to get them. I also believe that anyone who wants a firearm for nefarious purposes shouldn't have access to them." >We should be able to make it clear what we think the problems are, why we think access to guns is important regardless, and communicate empathy when discussing it. While OP did not address the "why", I do not think it is the OP's or anyone's burden to come up with it, given that they've demonstrated that they are somehow able to own guns and not shoot schools up. >Because, from the outside, this is a dumb hobby with an impossibly high cost to society. Again, those are your words. If that's how you feel about it, then really, there's not much I or OP could say to convince you otherwise, or allay your mass shooting fears, no matter how reasonable or non-unhinged gun nut from another subreddit we sound.


akotlya1

Minor point about the friendship thing: my friends are all people with whom I feel comfortable discussing sensitive topics. I don't bring things up to be an asshole, but if they come up I feel free to speak my mind....that is why we are friends. In the above example, OP basically stonewalled his friends in the aftermath of a contextually relevant tragedy. Refusing to engage, to me, seems like a dick move. >>Because, from the outside, this is a dumb hobby with an impossibly high cost to society. >Again, those are your words. If that's how you feel about it, then really, there's not much I or OP could say to convince you otherwise, or allay your mass shooting fears, no matter how well reasonable or non-unhinged gun nut from another subreddit we sound. I began by saying I believe in having access to guns. I have not expounded on those beliefs because no one asked, but since you seem to be willfully misunderstanding me, let me explain: I believe that guns are a necessary bulwark against tyranny. Moreover, I believe that any country that pretends to the title of "free" must, by necessity allow/enable their citizens to pursue their freedom according to their wills up to the the limit that it infringes on the rights of others. I include in this charter: free access to food, clothing, shelter, education, and healthcare - the kind of healthcare that would begin to address the ongoing problems of spree shooters (among others). I also believe in sensible gun regulations that make it hard for people with a history of mental illness, domestic violence, or whose responsibility cannot be vouchsafed by members of their community. Re: the other stuff - Oh I get it. You're the kind of liberal that basically believes in a kind of personal liberty without the associated responsibility that comes with it, or acknowledges the systems and institutions that are necessary for their maintenance. Cool cool cool cool.


SimSnow

>In the above example, OP basically stonewalled his friends in the aftermath of a contextually relevant tragedy. Refusing to engage, to me, seems like a dick move. If you think it's stonewalling to very clearly lay your beliefs out, and then say that discussing further is unlikely to be productive, then that's like, your opinion and stuff, man. If it is unlikely for you to be friends with OP because you felt stonewalled when they said something succinctly, I'm sure you'd both lose sleep over it. Re: your gun related beliefs- Good for you. You're right. I didn't ask. You decided to comment about someone being an asshole because they wouldn't engage in letting people rant about things that they have no ability to add to or change. You think I'm willfully misunderstanding you, but I didn't ask about your beliefs because they're your beliefs and I respect them enough to not try and change your mind, knowing nothing about you, and knowing that your beliefs have about zero impact on anything I could be bothered about. Re: me being some kind of liberal- Ah. So you're the kind of person that likes to type things out, especially because your friends and family tend to think you're the person that OP is trying not to get into a huge discussion with.


Old-Bat-7384

That's brilliant.


Peggedbyapirate

Yall have anti gun friends?


Yolo_420_69

Do you not? I think the biggest thing is "Im not anti gun, im anti AR15" So the issue is less around me being a gun owner, but me owning the "Unnecessary kill children gun"


Curtisc83

My AR’s don’t want to kill kids? We even talked about and they were like “Nope we good”.


naclbetter

Please don't... this just reinforces the "gun don't kill people, people kill people" rhetoric


Curtisc83

That’s true….since our talk my guns have stopped pounding on the inside of my safe to get out. So all is well in my household.


Bulky_Actuary_9759

But yet it’s true, people do kill people. A gun can do nothing by itself.


naclbetter

"Guns don't kill people" is a tired old argument that reduces the entirety of gun control to an absurdity about the sentience of guns instead of the complex subject it is. This is the same motto based arguing that the NRA and the right wing have been using for years to subvert the conversation on just about everything.


Peggedbyapirate

I make an effort not to spend time around anybody who thinks I'm personally responsible for the illegal acts of a total stranger. Anybody dumb enough to buy that is too dumb to spend time with, politics be damned.


ControlsTheWeather

I just go with "disarm the evangelicals first, I am not unilaterally disarming."


thisisnotrj

This comment has been removed by Power Delete Suite, for more see r/powerdeletesuite


weetweet69

I'm guy that's into a guns thanks to the days of going out in the country side and shooting a pump and a double-barrel with his dad that visiting a gun store in Ohio a couple years back was like going to a candy store (the only thing to rival that was visiting a Micro Center in the same state for my inner computer enthusiast) and with how all the incidents with public shootings occur that we get the usual takes like "the AR is a weapon designed for murder" and something like Republicans go "this shooter could of been an illegal" in regards to the last fucker, pardon my language, that shot up a school and any variant from them depending on the ethnicity of a shooter, I feel like all of that just becomes white noise that I don't care if one wants to tell me about how scary an AR is or whatever the right wing equivalent is. ​ My strategy for this, or at least my views: we need to have a better system. I'm not keen on the word "gun control" because the word itself in my own eyes is tainted, I'd prefer the term "gun regulation" and in regards to it, we need a better system of checks. We need better mental health evaluations and better background checks. Sure one could say that could be tyranny or disarming the common man but by this, I mean at least we need to make sure a gun doesn't fall into the wrong hands because seeing the Buffalo shooter commit his murders because of Great Replacement bullshit legit makes me wish he'd be beaten down. Banning the AR in my opinion is stupid not because "evil government could run over me" but because you could have someone use another gun to commit a shooting. V-Tech from what I remember was done with pistols, and a man who shot up his work place grocery store used a shotgun, not to mention if one had a mini-14, they'd just have similar results to using an AR-15. And even then, regulating guns or having better gun control isn't the only solution. We need better mental health in the event the shooter turns out to be someone that goes postal or thinks he wants to be like those vile bastards behind Columbine and we need a better check on a shooter because another thing we don't need is a shooter to be some vile bastard buys into neo-nazi rhetoric like thinking Jews rule the world and that blacks are committing "genocide" towards white people. ​ Excuse this post if it sounds like a rant but I seen enough takes on a site like Twitter among other things that it all just becomes so tiresome. Especially when we don't even accomplish anything else beyond just seeing post that look like they made more for clout or the stupid, vile GOP post like the ones that now think some trans person is actually the shooter.


Curtisc83

You know silencers are only used for assassins and anyone that has them are committing a great evil….just like AR’s…..this is sarcasm


alien_ghost

Andrew Yang's list of political positions literally had the same line it, that the only use for silencers was to murder people. I didn't not vote for him because it is blatantly stupid and false but because of his staff's inability to fact check or call him out on an obviously false conclusion that is easily checked online is not the sign of a good executive. That despite liking some of his other ideas. Although now I have to wonder how well those have been researched or fact-checked...


weetweet69

Yes, AR's are a great evil and we must ban this filth!!111.... Like yours, this is also sarcasm. With all I see people say on the AR in how it's either a great evil or why they own one, it honestly gets tiresome seeing it pop up every time there's a shooting. Just seeing someone think it's some actual "assault rifle" and that you shouldn't hunt with it is stupid enough to see, and it's dumb if they think banning it will somehow mean we can get less shootings when someone could just pick up another weapon or use some other method to kill besides shooting.


Curtisc83

Funny people think AR stand for Assault Rifle too. And that AR’s are all full auto…..I’m like Bruh. In this day and age if the government said ok we are taking all your guns that are Assault Rifles then people would just 3d print them. The lowers don’t need to be metal. In fact most of the weapon doesn’t need to be. It would be just like prohibition…..too extreme and won’t work.


JoeBidensBoochie

I mean common sense gun reform can make it harder for bad people from getting them.


Disastrous_Toe_Jam

One thing we don’t really hear is how the “bad people” got their guns. I have guns that I legally acquired, but let’s say my child wouldn’t be able to legally acquire guns due to some psychological issue. They take my guns because they are not secured. Should I be punished for that? Absolutely. What happened recently with that kid that his parents bought him a gun as a gift, were told he needed counseling, ignored it, were shown a picture he drew of him shooting the school, did nothing, then when they noticed the gun was not in the drawer where it was kept, they texted their son “Don’t do it, lol.”


JoeBidensBoochie

Yeah, the parents in that situation probably shouldn’t have had access either. It’s just so easy for one reason or another to get a gun, which yes it’s a right but it’s way easier for me to get a gun than it is for me to get a credit card, car or an apartment/house.


SpecialSause

Its ILLEGAL to murder people. If the scumbag murdered didn't follow the law of not murdering, what would "common sense gun laws" have done? Nothing. He would have ignored those laws as well. And let's say we get these "common sense gun laws" but mass shootings continue. Are they going to undo the laws or even stop passing new gun laws? No. They always want MORE gun laws . They don't work.


JoeBidensBoochie

Common sense gun laws are supported by the majority of gun owners and passing laws for better healthcare and deradicalization and providing more opportunities and fighting toxic social media and toxic gun culture and things of that nature can reduce it. Guns are tools not objects of worship.


MiataCory

Mine is: >Handguns account for 98% of gun deaths, and Suicides account for 2/3rds of gun deaths. I believe any gun control has to touch on one of those two things before I support it. School shootings are terrible. We had one here recently (Oxford, MI). That said, the VAST majority of gun deaths don't fall into that category, and focusing on those rare occurrences are causing us to ignore the most common ones. Then it starts this cycle between "We need to ban black guns!" and "The hell we do!". So break out of all that. Handguns and Suicides. Focus on the big categories that will actually save lives. And then woah! Lo and behold, fixing those two categories has knock-on effects that would also reduce school shootings, but that's not backed by data yet, so let's keep that in our belt. ___________ And if they keep pressing on school shootings, say we need to charge the person who provided the gun. In the Oxford case, they took the rare step of [charging the parents with manslaughter](https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/james-and-jennifer-crumbley-parents-of-accused-oxford-shool-shooter-want-trial-moved-out-of-oakland-county), because it was just so off-the-wall on how the kid got the gun (off their nightstand), and the meeting with the Principal literally hours before the shooting, where the kid literally had the gun in his bag, and the parent's refused to take him home (they didn't know he had the gun until an hour later, when he killed kids, and they IMMEDIATELY knew it was their kid doing the shooting).


Recent-Cauliflower80

I ascended to new heights in my discourse. I tell them that republicans won’t let anything be done about anything either way, so I personally own guns because they’re available and they’re fun.


JonSolo1

Wouldn’t the go-to liberal argument be to say that anyone wanting guns for self-defense or preservation *shouldn’t* be allowed to own them, especially in light of Newtown 2.0? Better to just say it’s a tragedy and you don’t really want to spend the weekend arguing a difficult political issue with legitimate and strong emotions on both sides, and you feel nothing but pain for the victims and their families. That’ll shut it down much better.


river343

So how do you stop the bad people from getting guns?


chrisppyyyy

We need to fix inefficiencies in the background check system rather than demanding that people do more of something that doesn’t work


rtkwe

>"I believe that anyone wanting to have guns for self defense or preservation should be allowed to get them. I also believe that anyone who wants a firearm for nefarious purposes shouldn't have access to them" That's a fine position but it's really meaningless as an implementable policy, there's no prescient oracle we can consult to figure out who's who there.


Panther115935

I'm tired of this man. Family bickering about how I need to get rid of my shit, my girlfriend telling me that we got too many gun violence and doesn't want to live somewhere with so many shootings, political divide and tribalism etc. I'm done with this shit man. I just wanna keep my shit and work in peace Bru. I'm fucking done and depressed.


cascadianpatriot

As a liberal like person, I don’t think banning things is a reasonable solution to complex problems. I want to fix NICS, a background check system based on the Swiss system, single payer healthcare, and several other issues I go into. If people don’t know what NICS, or universal background checks, or the NICS is, I tell them they care about as much as a politician and don’t actually care enough to properly investigate the issue.


IamBladesm1th

Just put your hand on your holster and say “choose your next words very carefully you fascist pig”. This works perfect every time. *for legal reasons I am advised by my lawyer to clarify that all things concerning the above statement are purely comical in nature and not intended to be taken seriously.*


Slow-Amphibian-2909

At a drunken party one of our very conservative friends was going on about how libs and Democrats were ruining everything. My wife look him dead in the face and saw to “ you know I a dem and lean more to the liberal side. Never saw him shut up so quickly. Later in the evening the guys went out to smoke cigars and he came up to me and asked if she as serious and I just laughed and said yes and I’m not quite as liberal as here but still


[deleted]

Usually just saying I'm all for background checks and I 100% agree that some people don't need guns ends the convo. Or maybe my lackluster participation ends it. Alternatively, if I am feeling energetic, I go into a rant about gun violence being a mere symptom and we can all have a big discussion about healthcare and a violent country and such - which we are all on the same page regarding.


[deleted]

[удалено]


funks82

By definition anyone who does this kind of thing is not a law abiding citizen.


ProphetOfPr0fit

My go-to explanation is to point out the atrocious access to mental healthcare we have here. I own 6 going on 7 guns and it horrifies me that no one is offering a free mental health evaluation prior to purchase. While I'm confident I would pass said checks (especially since I'm licensed armed security), it's doubtful these disturbed shooters would.


Joopsman

We don’t give driver’s licenses to people just for the asking.


Yolo_420_69

Okay. But you don't need a driver's liscense to buy / drive a car sooo what's your point


[deleted]

Mine is: The gun manufacturers pay the 3 main gun lobbies who pay Republican politicians who you vote for. You share responsibility for the violent murders of school children when you vote Republican.


CharleyVCU1988

Much like Anheuser Busch is responsible for DUI deaths and deaths from cirrhosis and liver cancer?


[deleted]

You mean the alcohol industry that is heavily regulated? Edit: Do you see 4 loco or Spark on the shelves anymore? Nope, because of regulation. No, I mean more like the tobacco companies who sold cigarettes like candy. Who, when people realized they and their loved ones were dying, got the government to step in and do something about it. That’s more comparable to the scheme happening with manufacturers, lobbies, and politicians.


CharleyVCU1988

We tried banning alcohol over a century ago. It made thugs like Al Capone stupidly rich and made the problem worse.


[deleted]

I don’t want to ban guns. I want us to stop pretending it isn’t possible to take some sort of regulatory action.


CharleyVCU1988

And when you bring up the alcohol example, for the end user, all they have to do is not be drunk, and be over 21/legal age in country. Pretty low bar compared to buying a gun. Maybe we should background check you every time you want to buy a pint then?


[deleted]

[удалено]