view the rest of the comments
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
That's the usual, facile, explanation. I have 40+ guns. Am I 40x the danger to society? The nut with a .22 pistol is 1,000x as dangerous as me, because you just about can't make me shoot you.
We had plenty of fucking guns back in the day, and this shit didn't happen. (Hint: This boolshit really kicked off with Columbine.)
Not sure what you mean, but I'd bet you're pointing in the right direction.
Look folks, I'm a LiberalGunNut™ and I've been looking at this for years. Bullshit like "fewer guns", "mag cap bans" and the like are not useful or practical arguments. Here's the nasty part; I don't have any good ideas.
The 2A exists and the courts uphold it as an individual right. Those are facts, not open for argument. So WTF we do now?
I'm open to listen and debate. Unfortunately for most debaters, I can argue both sides because I know the issues well. I keep hoping to get more and better ideas.
I'll throw one out; Red flag laws that allow the police to take your guns, temporarily, if you act nutty.
Sounds like a no-brainer? OTOH, we constantly see police abuse their power and murder people. "Shalafi71 has a shotgun and is talking some crazy shit!" Now the cops show up, shoot my pet pig, shoot me, shoot my wife, the usual. Stuns me that fellow libs distrust the cops on every single issue but this one.
Here's another idea; Educate children on the realities of firearms. Bring home the seriousness (and horror) of pulling that trigger on another human being. At the worst, they'll be able to identify unsafe people to run from. Liberals: "FUCK all that indoctrination!"
IDK, anyone got serviceable ideas for us?
The best answer we have for gun violence is the same as the best answer we have for most other societal issues. Establish a reasonable minimum acceptable quality of life and work to see that as many people as possible have or exceed it. It means giving more power to workers and unions, making healthcare and social services accessible, strengthening the social safety net, reforming the criminal justice system to seek the least punitive effective intervention, to interact equitably with all members of society, and to focus on rehabilitation. That list isn't exhaustive but is already well beyond what there is the political will to achieve.
Any solution that tries to replace the stuff you just mentioned with some kind of prohibition is doomed to fail. If all the guns in the world vanished tomorrow we'd just be having this argument about mass stabbings and school bombings instead.
I'm sorry, but "there's no point in trying to solve the main problem, because if we did, we'd just resort to trying to solve the lesser problems next" really isn't a good argument. It's the entire point of progress!
What's stopping mass stabbings and school bombings from occurring now? If they as effective or achievable as shooting people, presumably murderers would be using those options on par with shootings. If they are more difficult or less effective, then it seems like we should prefer the lesser evil, no?
I'm sorry, but "let's ignore the real issues by treating the symptoms" doesn't fly with me.
It's always the same playbook... Put out a trash argument, and then try to pivot to the next talking point when you get called out.
I'm interested in discussing the actual argument you made, not an imaginary one you're making for me.
School bombings and mass stabbings are simply an infinitesimal problem compared to shootings. Surely there's a reason for that, and the most obvious one is that there is some impediment to committing murder in those ways that is smaller than using a gun.
Mass stabbings aren't common here but happen fairly frequently around the world. They aren't common here because you don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
Bombings aren't as common as school shootings because most school shooters don't want to kill that indiscriminately. Also, while it's not particularly difficult to create an effective bomb, getting ahold of a gun is probably easier.
But the point is that conditions in this country are driving people to violence and the actual argument is that we need to do something about violence, not guns.
¿Por que no los dos?
Seriously, crimes require motive and opportunity. Clearly a prevalence of guns provide the opportunity murderers prefer, so why should we wholesale disregard that as a way to reduce mass violence when guns are the preferred vehicle?
To be clear, I empathize with the argument that mental health issues are also a factor, but that argument seems to be brought up exclusively as a reaction to gun control, and never with any serious follow through. So until the pro-gun crowd starts proposing some actual solutions that aren't simply blame games rooted in vague racism (fatherless families blah blah blah) or christofascism (put Jesus back in our schools) I can't take them seriously. If universal mental health care, dismantling of systematic racism, etc were issues supported by the pro-gun bloc, then it would be a different story.
I'm gonna need a source on that one. The entire MO of these mass shootings (and indeed bombings) has been to cause as much death and injury as possible in a short timeframe, and the only targeting I've seen is toward the general building, such as a school or nightclub.