Ongoing Mass Shootings Thread pt 2

[DaveC]

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens - The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

[anitram]

Like that woman said on Twitter yesterday, the GOP maintains that banning guns won't end gun violence.

But already today they announced yet another bill to ban abortion after the 20th week. Because banning abortion will end abortions.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Gotta protect those unborn kids in the womb, but when they're gunned down in an elementary school? Eh, nothing we can do to stop that.

To say nothing of how the only person directly impacted by an abortion is the woman herself. A nutjob with a gun going on a shooting spree, meanwhile, puts society at large in danger.

 

[YBORCITY]

I think it's laughable using the 2nd amendment argument and the right to bear arms defense. I would think that back when the founding fathers thought of this the most powerful weapon personal weapon had to be reloaded and a person would be probably able to get 2 shots off in a matter of minutes.... We have to be smarter than this, there's no way a civilian should have access to this type of weapon.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Exactly.

And back then, the government and the civilians were a little more evenly matched in terms of weaponry. Anyone who honestly thinks their guns will beat a government that currently has nukes and drones and other major military weaponry at its disposal nowadays is either incredibly naive or just plain stupid.

I also find it incredibly disturbing that some people seem so eager to get into an all out war with our federal government, and think taking up arms against them is the best way to solve any issues we have with them. Chill out a little and settle down, guys.

 

[U2girl]

 

[namkcuR]

As a pro-gun-control American, I feel like Irvine and LuckyNumber were being a bit overly defensive with regards to monkeyskin and Axver's comments.

However, given the polarized nature of this issue here, the incredible number of firearms already in circulation and owned, and the role of money and media in politics, it's a very, very difficult and frustrating issue to navigate.

First off, the constitution and the second amendment were repeatedly bought up. That's counter-productive to the cause of gun control in the U.S. To be clear, if we're talking about getting rid of the amendment altogether, the way you repeal a constitutional amendment is by adding another constitutional amendment that basically says the amendment in question is no longer in effect. In order to pass an amendment to the constitution, you need a two-thirds majority in both houses of our Congress. You can't get two-thirds of both houses of our Congress to agree that the sky is blue or that two plus two equals five, much less on something this politically volatile. It's politically impossible, and for this reason, nobody, even those who theoretically have no use for the amendment and would like to see it gone, is ever going to waste any time arguing for it as an actual possibility in the real world. What pro-gun-control people argue for is legislation that puts restrictions on said amendment via law, without touching the constitution.

Second, the NRA, which I believe is correctly labeled a terrorist organization, and other pro-gun groups, not to mention pro-gun conservative politicans, tend to twist any support of politican x for sensible gun control legislation y into an authoritarian desire of politician x to come and take your guns. So if, say, a group of senators support legislation to have stricter background checks, limit ammunition size, have waiting periods before you can purchase a gun, and create a national gun registry, the NRA, other gun groups, and, if those senators are currently running for office, their conservative opponents, will run political ads with doom-and-gloom music and a low voice-over saying, for example, 'Senator x wants to take your guns and prevent you from being able to protect yourself. Defend your freedom, vote against Senator x'. Stuff like that.

And what happens is there are enough uninformed and ignorant people out there that will buy it. So it's hard for even centrist Democrats, particularly if they represent a red state, to support this kind of legislation. That's why it's more often only the further left Democrats that openly support it. Hell, even self-admitted socialist Bernie Sanders wasn't as aggressive about gun control during his presidential campaign as some on the left would have liked because he represents Vermont, a state with a large rural population who likes their guns.

Third, what's not talked about enough is that there are big corporate interests that are against gun control. That's what the NRA is. It's just a lobbying arm of the corporate interests that generate their profit from the manufacture and sale of firearms and ammunition. The NRA does not care about Joe Gun Owner. They work for big corporations. It's not really much different from oil companies doing all they can to slow down the progress of green and renewable energies in order to protect their business. We live in a plutocracy.

Fourth, there are a lot of gun owners, not the gun-toting redneck types, but just regular people like you and me, except who own guns, who genuinely don't think the kind of gun-control legislation the left pines for will actually make all that much of a difference(given all the firearms and ammunition already out there) while at the same time imposing unfair limitations on law-abiding gun-owners who have no intention of doing anything bad. Of course, the counter is that if there's any chance it will make any difference at all, you do it.

Fifth, a lot of anti-gun-control people are also of the type that have a big fixation on freedom and liberty. They see limitation of gun rights as an infringement of everyone's freedom as a whole, and that if you allow the government to keep chipping away at that freedom, eventually none will be left.

Sixth, and perhaps this ties into #5 above, there seems to be a rather nasty strain of paranoia in the right-wing. You can't buy into Alex Jones and the like if you're not a little paranoid already. You can't believe political ads the NRA puts out saying Senator x wants to come and take your guns if you're not a little paranoid already. You can't walk into coffee shops with a machine gun around your waist as if you're part of a militia if you're not a little paranoid already. This could be a factor as well.

It's just a very volatile, emotional, polarizing issue complicated by ignorance, fear, paranoia, and downright immoral behavior on the part of the NRA and the like.

I just wrote a lot, and I don't know if I said anything everyone doesn't already know, but I had to get it out.

 

[cobl04]

ahem, it was me too

 

[anitram]

First off, the constitution and the second amendment were repeatedly bought up. That's counter-productive to the cause of gun control in the U.S. To be clear, if we're talking about getting rid of the amendment altogether, the way you repeal a constitutional amendment is by adding another constitutional amendment that basically says the amendment in question is no longer in effect. In order to pass an amendment to the constitution, you need a two-thirds majority in both houses of our Congress. You can't get two-thirds of both houses of our Congress to agree that the sky is blue or that two plus two equals five, much less on something this politically volatile. It's politically impossible, and for this reason, nobody, even those who theoretically have no use for the amendment and would like to see it gone, is ever going to waste any time arguing for it as an actual possibility in the real world. What pro-gun-control people argue for is legislation that puts restrictions on said amendment via law, without touching the constitution.

There is of course another, much more reasonable, way out of this which is the correct interpretation and application of the second amendment. But instead the SCOTUS is a political body and not a judicial one, it is the most political judicial body in the entire free world, by a wide margin. They are as massive a problem as the NRA, etc.

Ultimately this is mostly on the backs of the Republican voters, who staunchly refuse to have a come to Jesus moment on this. If even half of them stood up and said enough is enough, combined with the gun control views of the left you can bet you'd see legislative changes post haste. But no, they're useless on this issue just like almost every other.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

The second amendement is stupid and archaic. The second amendement is also ingrained in culture in the US.

Many who defend it frequently make a constitutionalist argument. Constitutionalist arguments are bad. Logical arguments are good. Constitutionalists treat forefathers like they're godly infallible beings who could predict the exact future.

How to uproot that culture? I don't know. Fantastic question. Probably slowly.

 

[kiwilad]

I read these posts by informed and concerned and educated Americans and find myself wondering if maybe it is all too hard. I know the Australia exampke worked, but there were very different contexts at play there than there are in the US re gun control.

And yet, America prides itself on the free market, on capitalism. And roughly 55% of the country is left of centre. That's a lot of people. A lot of customers for firearms manufacturers.

So you think back to Lennon pissing off the Christians who then burnt their Beatles records. In the renaissance crowds of people burnt books as a response to supposed heresy.

If 55% of Americans made a public display of trashing their guns, and pledged never to buy any others, surely that would have an effect. Like a catastrophic collapse of the firearm market.

For manufacturers amd retailers to coax that market back there'd have to be enough changes to placate the market. Perhaps the agreement that automatic of semi automatic weapons will no longer be sold etc etc.

There's a million holes i my example but the point is, I'm struck by how many American friends hate current US gun laws, yet still own guns.

Ok you want to defend yourself. But really, what are the odds of actually needing your personal firearm for self defense, versus being caught in the crossfire of a mass shooting?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I mean if you ask me, Sanders had a good grasp of guns in the US and reality. However, he didn't have the guts to drive into it more.

Sounds ridiculous, but guns needs its MLK. It needs a loud leader - but someone willing to take a risk. Someone who can identify the problem, reason with the opposition, and pose a solution. Politicians need to step up and put their careers on the line, if you ask me.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

If 55% of Americans made a public display of trashing their guns, and pledged never to buy any others, surely that would have an effect. Like a catastrophic collapse of the firearm market.

I like this idea.

Ok you want to defend yourself. But really, what are the odds of actually needing your personal firearm for self defense, versus being caught in the crossfire of a mass shooting?

Especially since people who own guns are generally more likely to be shot, or have a loved one get shot, with the very same guns they claim to keep for defense. And they're often not shot by some random intruder, either. It's either an accidental shooting, or somebody they already know, and who knows where they keep their guns, intentionally shoots them as a result of some dispute. People never stop to think about that stuff.

I remember seeing a story on TV once about a teenage boy who came from a family that owned many guns. The boy himself even had a gun of his own, though his parents kept the bullets for said gun in their room instead of his.

When the boy was laid up at home as a result of a skiing injury, he'd spent his time playing violent video games. His parents were concerned about his interest in the games and took them away, and apparently this fueled some tension in the family* for a while afterward as a result. Some time after the boy had healed up, one night, when his parents were sitting in their living room, he came in with his fully loaded gun and shot them, killing his mom in the process. And what do you suppose his dad, and the episode at large, blamed his violent outburst and focused most heavily on afterwards?

If you said the video games, congratulations, you're right. Nobody in that show even once bothered to consider or talk about the fact that THE FAMILY OWNED GUNS AND THE SON HAD EASY ACCESS TO THEM was the real problem. Or discuss how nonsensical it was that the parents wanted to take away their son's video games, but saw nothing wrong with him keeping an actual gun in his bedroom. The whole thing just drove me absolutely bonkers.

*(so the episode says, anyway. Frankly, if a kid decides to shoot his parents as a solution to his problems with them, I'm inclined to believe there were likely a lot of issues lurking for quite some time. But yeah.)

Speaking for myself, I hate guns. They terrify me, and I have absolutely no desire to ever learn to use one, let alone own one. Honestly, I would be incredibly happy if I woke up tomorrow and found out guns were no longer a thing at all.

 

[anitram]

I mean if you ask me, Sanders had a good grasp of guns in the US and reality. However, he didn't have the guts to drive into it more.

Sounds ridiculous, but guns needs its MLK. It needs a loud leader - but someone willing to take a risk. Someone who can identify the problem, reason with the opposition, and pose a solution. Politicians need to step up and put their careers on the line, if you ask me.

That's exactly it. What gun control needs is somebody like Warren Buffet with almost unlimited funds to make that their life mission. And you treat gun control the same way you treated tobacco starting in the 60s with the first surgeon general's report, but that didn't really gain steam until 2 decades later. You absolutely can shape public opinion, but it has to be concerted and relentless.

 

[YBORCITY]

I often wonder what the other country's of the world must think of the US? I don't begrudge any foreigner that looks at us with disdain and utter confusion. I'm not a left leaning person in fact I think a person should be able to protect themselves, their family and their property. I just can't wrap my head around why it's allowed that civilians have this type of fire power or even would want this much fore power.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

That's exactly it. What gun control needs is somebody like Warren Buffet with almost unlimited funds to make that their life mission. And you treat gun control the same way you treated tobacco starting in the 60s with the first surgeon general's report, but that didn't really gain steam until 2 decades later. You absolutely can shape public opinion, but it has to be concerted and relentless.

Mike Bloomberg has stepped up to the plate big time on the gun issue, and devoted large sums of his own personal fortune towards gun issues.

And it still hasn't made a serious dent, because the people who actually disagree with him would never listen to Mike Bloomberg, anyways.

The change needs to come from the right.

And the only way to do that is through campaign finance reform to stop NRA money from flowing to politicians, or a conservative corporation standing up and throwing large sums of money at the cause so that moderate to semi-moderate Republicans don't need to rely on NRA money.

That's what it comes down to. If you asked large numbers of even Republican congresspersons in private, I'm sure you would find enough who would like to vote for sane, logical gun reform... but they won't, because they're terrified of the money that the NRA will either take away from them and/or throw at an opposing Republican candidate in the primaries.

Another possible solution might be term limits, as you may be able to find more congresspersons willing to have a fucking backbone if they weren't worried about re-election (see John McCain's new found lack of giving a shit).

 

[corianderstem]

If 55% of Americans made a public display of trashing their guns, and pledged never to buy any others, surely that would have an effect. Like a catastrophic collapse of the firearm market.

According to this (June 2016), only about 36% of Americans own guns, or live with someone who does.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.5d69c40a369b

It's in the news a lot, and our country's gun obsession is (rightfully) alarming to much of the world, but it seems like there's a misconception that most of the US owns guns.

 

[YBORCITY]

What's also puzzling that most of the people who wrap themselves in the 2nd amendment argument also is dead set against abortion rights... Which makes me think that fetus' should have more rights than 58 concert goers in Vegas, 13 students in Columbine, 27 angels in Newtown.....

 

[Nick66]

The reason nothing even happens after one of these tragedies is that politicians in both parties aren't being honest about the terms of the debate. Republicans aren't being honest with their brain dead ideas about an armed citizenry being safer and "guns don't kill people, people kill people" rubbish. And Democrats aren't being honest when they trot out the rote suggestion that "common sense gun control" measures are going to stop or even significantly reduce gun violence. The reason the Republicans lie is because they're afraid of the NRA; the reason Democrats lie is because if they spoke out loud what really needs to happen (what the honest ones know needs to happen) they'd never win another election.

I’m all for sensible gun control legislation. Background checks, waiting periods, gun free zones, etc. Everything everyone is talking about when it comes to these kind of “common sense” reforms. By all means. It’s absurd that the US doesn’t have that kind of no-brainer regulation. It should be something all sane people can agree on. It’s to the NRA’s (which was once a responsible organisation for genuine enthusiasts) shame that they reflexively block even modest gun regulation. And they do, every single time.

That said, in my opinion, the gun violence problem is so pervasive in the US that none of these half measures are going to make much difference. They’re certainly not going to stop kind the mass shootings that typically are the catalyst for increased gun control legislation. If you want to make a real difference you have to get the guns, all of them pretty much. The hand guns and the automatic weapons. Do what we do in the UK and what they did in Australia and then you’ll have a lot less people dying. Well, people will still die, but not of gunshot wounds.

And make no mistake, THAT's what it's going to take. All this other stuff is just half measures. Of course, to get the guns you first have to do something about the Second Amendment. Or at least get a SCOTUS that interprets it differently.

 

[corianderstem]

That pretty much sums up where my feelings lie these days.

 

[namkcuR]

It's fine to say that, but I just don't see how it can ever happen. It's impossible. Look how people react to just to background checks and waiting periods, and imagine how they'd react if the government actually tried to take the guns.

If we're talking about buybacks, you might get some people to take the money, but not too many, and not nearly enough to make a difference.

If we're talking about mandatory confiscation where agents literally go and force everyone to give up their guns, it's more probable to start the second Civil War than anything else. I just came from a comment section on an article about what confiscation might look like in the U.S. and a pro-gun person said something along the lines of, it would result in a lot of dead agents.

Like I said, I just don't see how it can ever happen.

 

[corianderstem]

Neither can I, that's why it feels so helpless.

 

[anitram]

If you started by banning further sales + offering buyback, that would at least stem the tide. You can figure out later what to do with the existing guns but I don't understand why you have to tolerate this lunatic buying 33 guns in a single year on a going forward basis.

 

[Hewson]

And yet, America prides itself on the free market, on capitalism. And roughly 55% of the country is left of centre. That's a lot of people. A lot of customers for firearms manufacturers.

So you think back to Lennon pissing off the Christians who then burnt their Beatles records. In the renaissance crowds of people burnt books as a response to supposed heresy.

If 55% of Americans made a public display of trashing their guns, and pledged never to buy any others, surely that would have an effect. Like a catastrophic collapse of the firearm market.

For manufacturers amd retailers to coax that market back there'd have to be enough changes to placate the market. Perhaps the agreement that automatic of semi automatic weapons will no longer be sold etc etc.

There's a million holes i my example ?

I'll agree with the million holes portion.

As Cori points out, 36% own guns or live with a gun owner. I'd venture that at least 80% of that 36% is right leaning or at least moderate.

You make it sound like everyone in America, including the 55% you note as left leaning are gun owners.
Its way off base.

The vast majority of that 55% do not own guns.

Change your avatar.

 

[YBORCITY]

How could the NRA hold such sway? I completely understand it's by lining the pockets of legislatures but at some point someone has to stand up and say this is beyond gone on long enough.... But unfortunately I don't think there's some one with the fortitude to do this ... But worse it might be too late... Its the old adage how do you get the toothpaste back in the tube... We're so far down this road is there any solution?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Counterculture.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

How could the NRA hold such sway? I completely understand it's by lining the pockets of legislatures but at some point someone has to stand up and say this is beyond gone on long enough.... But unfortunately I don't think there's some one with the fortitude to do this ... But worse it might be too late... Its the old adage how do you get the toothpaste back in the tube... We're so far down this road is there any solution?

Straight cash homey.

It really is that simple.

And that sad.

 

[BVS]

How could the NRA hold such sway? I completely understand it's by lining the pockets of legislatures but at some point someone has to stand up and say this is beyond gone on long enough.... But unfortunately I don't think there's some one with the fortitude to do this ... But worse it might be too late... Its the old adage how do you get the toothpaste back in the tube... We're so far down this road is there any solution?

$$$ war is very profitable.

The right is very easily manipulated(both extremes are). The first version of the modern tea party was started by Ron Paul and funded by big tobacco, they needed an anti-science crowd to rail against the government and claim there is no link between smoking and cancer. There are still remnants of that movement among us. Money buys propaganda, propaganda feeds the naive, and the naive give the propagandist back tenfold.

Sounds almost conspiracy like, right? Yet it's not. The NRA is doing the same thing as we speak. Gun purchases went up this week. Terror drives sales.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I think guns go further than tobacco etc.

There's something written into the culture at this point, given that it's "American" with the 2nd amendment.

But the motion to kill the culture needs to come from the top down. I know someone suggested some gun-burning display or what have you. That sort of bottom up motion will be laughed at by gun supporters. I think you just need to cut the head off the snake. Go for a full ban on anything that's not a sidearm and make people really pissed off.

 

[YBORCITY]

Immediately it's argued that the government wants to take the guns sway... You the right to hear arms and such and please I don't want to come off as a far leftist... Its my belief everyone has a right to protect themselves and property ... Its just how does anyone justify or argue it's ok for a civilian to have access to these type of weapons and now i just saw this guy has these after market parts thAt make a semi automatic into a virtual full automatic... In what society is this ok?