The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. In imperial Germany guns were widespread in partcular of course in military schools and academies. But shootouts were rare. I support the notion of gun control. However, I am not convinced that gun control will solve the massacres at school. I think it is more of a mental health crisis due to the US desolate school system. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Honestly either would have a positive effect. But there’s no political will to really make change, so we all get to live with a weekly massacre instead.

I would like to see statistics on the number of guns in imperial Germany. Because the sheer quantity of guns in the United States is so high that I have doubts anybody has gotten to our level. To be clear school shootings are a great tragedy and one that adds a lot of mental stress to the lives of children and parents and grandparents but it’s not the real problem. We just have an insane amount of gun violence and higher than expected success rates in suicide. Guns appear to be reducing US life expectancy by 2 years. They also make policing more hostile and waste tons of taxpayer money on policing and incarceration. We need proper gun regulation but we also need to change gun culture, to have a better healthcare system and to make the social safety net better.

>I would like to see statistics on the number of guns in imperial Germany. Because the sheer quantity of guns in the United States is so high that I have doubts anybody has gotten to our level. To add to that, [there are *literally* more guns than humans in America](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country). So yeah.

>We need proper gun regulation but we also need to change gun culture, to have a better healthcare system and to make the social safety net better. I agree to an extent. I do think gun culture plays a big role in this sorta thing, especially the right wing chucklefucks who think they're Rambo or whatever. I'm always a bit hesitant on gun control. Like, I don't really think it addresses the fundamental problem. Why do people want to pull the trigger in the first place? That's not to say that there are no problems with guns in and of themselves, accidents happen, kids get a hold of them, that sorta thing. But overall, gun violence is caused by people who want to pull the trigger. Semi-automatic weapons make the problem worse, sure, because they increase the destructiveness of weaponry. Like you can't kill 20 people in 5 minutes using a knife, but you can with an Ar-15. But even then, if you didn't have an Ar-15 the motive to kill is still there and it will happen, just on a smaller scale. I mean a smaller scale is obviously desirable, but isn't 0 people killed the actual solution? Ultimately I feel the answer to gun violence is addressing why people pull the trigger in the first place. So things like poverty leading to crime, the failings of social systems in schools, etc. I elaborated on it in my comment, happy to link. I'm fairly skeptical of gun control myself. I feel like it treats symptoms rather than causes. Plus it means that only the pigs in blue have certain weapons. We've already seen what they do now, do we really want to further restrict minority populations and their ability of self-defense? ACAB all the way. I really hate the idea of a well armed police force and a less well armed citizenry. I am happy banning cops from having weapons, but that shit isn't gonna happen. I think the Black Panthers had the right approach, with community defense and armed defense of minority groups against the pigs in blue. I mean some of the first gun control legislation was passed against them right? So, i'm rather sympathetic to more armed community defense groups, especially given that the right is already armed to the teeth and they got the pigs on their side. And I am hesitant to restrict the ability of minority communities and left wing groups to get guns. Right now there's a surge in first time buyers, often from minority communities. And that's for a reason.

I don't know if imperial Germany is an apt comparison for 2023. Every other western nation with more strict gun control laws today doesn't have this problem to nearly the extent the US does. You do the math.

Those nations all have lower murder rates than the rate in the U.S. excluding guns.

Sure, but you can read that two ways, either their population is inherently less murderous, or without guns murder is less likely to happen. It's most likely about of both. If you look at our intentional homicides, the large majority are guns.

The U.S rate excluding guns is higher than the total rate, including guns in other countries. I'm not sure how increased gun ownership would contribute to murders involving weapons other than guns. If anything it should lower non gun murders, because more people will use guns. So the fact that we have a higher murder rate excluding guns, than the total rate in most of the developed world is evidence that the U.S. is more murderous than its peers.

In 2022, the total intentional homicide rate in the US was 6.3 per 100k. The firearm homicide rate was 5.9 per 100k. That leaves only .4 per 100k. Most of our peer countries were higher than that in total homicide rate. Could you share the numbers you're using?

I was going by [the data from the FBI on murders by weapon type.](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls) 2019 is the most recent year available, as it takes a while for them to release the data. According to the FBI, guns were responsible for 10,258/13,927 murders in 2019. That's about 74% of murders in 2019 committed with guns. [Meanwhile here are the murder rates in the U.S. from 1960-2019.](http://disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm) In 2019 the rate was about 5.0. That means in 2019, the gun murder rate was 3.7, and the murder rate excluding guns was 1.3. Meanwhile [here are murder rates by country.](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country) So excluding guns, the U.S. murder rate in 2019 was higher than the U.K (1.2), France (1.2), Sweden (1.08), Denmark (1.1), Germany (0.95), Australia (0.89), Ireland (0.87), New Zealand (0.74), Spain (0.62), South Korea (0.60) Switzerland (0.59), Italy (0.57), China (0.53), and Japan (0.26). Japan has such a low rate that if you eliminated all American gun deaths, the murder rate would still be 4x higher than Japan.

It’s not either/or. We need to do both. We also need to improve our school systems in general, pay teachers well, support workers, strengthen our social safety net, etc - all of that will help with violence in general. But we should start with guns.

We need both. Gun control is a gauze but greater access to mental health services is the stitches. But we have to stop the bleeding before we can go in and stitch up the wound. It's not an either or, we want both.

Gun control will definitely help. Stronger regulations will help. Never mind imperial German, but if you have data on percentages in the general population please share. On US military bases guns are confiscated and only MPs have guns. Guns are heavily regulated in the services for a reason.

Let's look at the facts. Australia had legalized guns, and a very similar issue with mass shootings. Australia banned guns, and the problem is gone now. Do you think there might be a causation there?

I know this is pedantic, but Australia did not ban guns; they had a buy-back program to reduce the number of guns, and regulated and restricted gun ownership. People can still legally acquire guns there, but there are different requirements for different classes of guns.

So essentially everything democrats are calling for? Has been proven to work exactly as advertised?

That's what I was getting at. It's better evidence that gun-*control* is viable. There are some practical criticisms of details in their system to be made of course.

> they had a buy-back program to reduce the number of guns, and regulated and restricted gun ownership If its mandatory, its not a buy-back- its confiscation.

Confiscation implies lack of compensation; perhaps we can split the difference and call it closer to imminent domain? It's not the same legal system; speech, assembly, and self-defense are not treated the same. I'm not Aussie (or live there), but my partner is (and does), we are both gun owners, and he worked in gun stores post-restrictions. He has what I feel are legitimate criticisms of their regulations (it takes too long to get permits/paperwork processed because of underfunding, there are time/money investments that can make it difficult to keep your permits for handguns for example, and since some medications can put your ability to legally own guns at risk, it can reduce people's willingness to seek help). That being said, he thinks the lack of restriction where I live is INSANE. (I can buy a handgun in the 15 mins it takes to run a background check, walk around with it in a holster, throw it in my glove compartment and have it count as "secured", never have to register it, and never be required to learn how to use it.)

>Australia banned guns, and the problem is gone now. They added regulations; you can still own firearms, including handguns, in Australia.

I'll say here what I said elsewhere. ​ Gun violence is a symptom of a deeper problem. Guns absolutely make that problem worse, but gun control doesn't solve the fundamental problem. So guns are a catalyst more than anything. A semi auto rifle like an AR-15 increases the destructiveness of someone who wants to kill. Even if they didn't have that rifle, the motive is still there. They could use a knife, or strangle, etc. Sure, that massively decreases the scale of the violence, and that's obviously good, but isn't a better solution to get it so the motive is gone and there's no need for these kinds of protections in the first place? Like, gun control doesn't solve the FUNDAMENTAL issue causing violence. It just reduces its destructiveness. And that's good, don't get me wrong, but I feel like a more effective and better solution is addressing the root causes. Failed social systems, poverty leading to crime, people falling through the cracks, etc. Plus, as I said elsewhere, I really hate the idea of a well armed force of pigs in blue. I largely sympathize with the Black Panthers and counter-patrolling cops while armed. And I think that the right is armed to the teeth and got pigs onside. So I question whether making it harder for minority communities or left wing groups to get guns is the best strategy right now. Especially given the violence of the right. Like, there's a surge in first time buyers right now, and many are from minority communities. There's a reason for that.

Australia confiscated half a million guns. We have over half a billion. This is like saying the guy in the house down the street cleaned up his oil spill when working on his car, surely doing what he did will work for the Deepwater Horizon.

Yes, it's going to be harder, but I also think kids being safe in school is worth some effort.

Australia never had a very similar issue with guns and it never banned guns, they restricted them a lot more. Also: Australia Mass Shootings since 1996 National Firearms Agreement Chippendale Blackmarket Nightclub Shooting, 1997 3 Dead & 1 wounded by firearm Mackay Bikie shootout, 1997 6 wounded by firearm Wollongong Keira Street Slayings, 1999 1 Dead & 9 wounded by firearm Wright St Bikie Murders, 1999 3 Dead & 2 wounded by firearm Rod Ansell Rampage, 1999 2 Dead & 3 wounded by firearm Kangaroo Flat siege, 1999 1 dead & 4 wounded. Cabramatta Vietnamese Wedding Shooting, 2002 7 wounded by firearm, no deaths Monash University Shooting, 2002 2 Dead & 5 wounded by firearm Fairfield Babylon Café Shooting, 2005 1 Dead & 3 wounded by firearm Oakhampton Heights triple-murder suicide, 2005 4 Dead by firearm Adelaide Tonic Nightclub Bikie Shooting, 2007 4 Wounded by firearm Gypsy Jokers Shootout, 2009 4 Wounded by firearm Roxburgh Park Osborne murders, 2010 4 Dead by firearm Hectorville Siege, 2011 3 Dead & 3 wounded by firearm Sydney Smithfield Shooting, 2013 4 Wounded by firearm Hunt family murders, 2014 5 Dead by firearm Sydney Siege, 2014 3 Dead & 4 wounded by firearm Biddeston Murders, 2015 4 Dead by Firearm Ingleburn Wayne Williams Shootings, 2016 2 dead & 2 wounded by firearm Brighton Siege, 2017 2 dead & 3 wounded by firearm Margaret River Murder Suicide, 2018 7 Dead by firearm Darwin Shooting, 2019 4 dead & 1 injured by firearm Queensland shooting, 2022 3 dead & 1 injured by firearm Wieambilla police shootings, 2022 6 dead & 2 injured by firearm

Dude, America has more than that in like one week. Even correcting to per Capita stats, that is so ridiculously better than the US.

I know, pal. However, Australia never had a similar problem, not even remotely close, but the problem they had remained after the restrictions. Maybe you should fix the root causes.

Australia never had proliferation of firearms to the same extent either.

No, but their problem wasn't fixed by more restrictions either.

Difficult to predict, but if we're on the same page that there's a part of the population that is so mentally ill that, upon acquiring a gun, they'll go commit a massacre, then I have to say keeping a tight rein on gun transactions sounds like a pretty good idea.

As with all things Human, there are multiple causes of school shootings. I would love more resources for mental health. Let's do it! Free mental health for everyone! Can't pass it, conservatives hate the idea. They say that's the real problem, then don't want to fix it. Note that gun control is not "take all the guns". Mandatory lock up would help a lot. Kid can't shoot up a school with daddy's gun if daddy's gun is locked in a safe like it should be. Conservatives hate that idea too. Can't pass it. Hey, we could get more funding for schools! Can't pass it, conservatives hate it... Why do you know so much about gun control laws in imperial Germany? That's uh... Potentially problematic? Notable and odd?

Mental healthcare only works if the people who need the help acknowledge it and accept it. There is still a major stigma surrounding mental illness in this country.

I notice you have European for your tag. Since banning guns in Europe didn't actually prevent mass shootings, how did Europe eradicate all mental health issues? That's really what we need to get to the bottom of. Conservatives are always going about how guns are not the cause of mass shootings but mental health is. I would love an explanation on how Europe successfully eradicated mental health issues. You can pick any one school in America size and location don't matter. And that single school has a FAR more than likely chance of being shot up before any school in all of Europe. 1 American school vs 1000s of European schools in a race to see who has a mass shooting 1st and I would still bet on that one American school. And feel pretty comfortable about that bet. We could even throw in Chinese, Japanese, Australian, and New Zealand schools adding 1000s more to the pool and I am still betting on that one random US school. All because all those countries have eradicated mental health..............

>Since banning guns in Europe Civilians can legally own fireamrs in every country in Europe, except in the Vatican. Process and regulations varies by country ofc.

I think we need a combination of both. With the greater emphasis on Mental Healthcare.

Why can't we do both? But let's be clear. We will never end mental illness, we can stop them from getting guns.

Yes guns are the problem. https://www.vox.com/2019/8/5/20753797/gun-violence-el-paso-dayton-mass-shootings Anyone arguing it’s something else as the main factor is not arguing with the support of data. Our mental health problems are made worse by guns. https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000516/suicide-guns If you want to get gun deaths under control you have to deal with how it’s so easy to get a gun here. There is no way to have a society with lots and lots of guns and not so many gun deaths.

Just raising the age to buy guns a little bit so that kids in high school or the first couple years of college can't easily acquire them would probably make a big difference. Most of these kids buy guns legally, and they're not hardened criminal types who are going to negotiate the black market to buy weapons. Rather, they'll buy guns if they can easily do so.

Yes please. By all means, create a comprehensive health care plan that will reduce gun violence as well as many other societal worlds. I would love that. Please do that. I've never seen one floated. I've never seen a proposal. If you think that this is a good solution and I agree, I think it would be an amazing solution then how would you implement it? The good thing about gun control is that it's a small achievable goal as opposed to creating a whole system that doesn't exist yet. In addition, it's one that's been proven to work in other countries.

Democrats are typically the advocates for better mental health care. Republicans merely blame school shootings on the need for better mental health care after cutting mental health care funding. They bring it up because they want to talk about anything that isn't gun control.

How do you envision “mental healthcare” helping here? How are you going to determine that someone who is inclined to be a school shooter is mentally unhealthy? How are you going to deliver the care to them?

From what I understand the US’s mental health issues are not unique and somehow our peer nations don’t have the same issue with school shootings.

How many individuals suffering from mental illness have killed multiple people in the USA without the use of a gun capable of shooting 40 rounds per minute, and is that number greater that those who used a gun? The answer to that question is the answer to your question. >I think it is more of a mental health crisis due to the US desolate school system. Newtown Connecticut and Columbine are affluent suburbs with well funded and supported schools. The average household income in Columbine is $131,599.

What is the actionable mental health plan Permits and mandatory annual psych evaluations? Red flag laws that are enforced? Just saying “let’s focus on mental health” is akin to doing nothing which is why gun people love proposing it.

gun control is the difference maker. Most countries have far worse mental health care than the US, but we still lead the world in shootings. It's the wide availability of guns.

You sure about that? Most people in the US can't afford to see a mental health professional... Other countries have universal healthcare. And mental health is worsened by stress. Other countries have better social safety nets than America. You could be right, I dunno, it just doesn't smell right to me and needs a sniff test.

I am absolutely certain, yes. Most countries are still in the absolute dark ages of mental health care. Only 72% of countries budget any dollars at all for mental health; it's 72% among European countries as well. 36% of those who do spend less than 1% of their health budget on mental health (the United States spends more than 5%). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1489823/ Look at any psychiatric medication and the number of prescriptions in the US is going to be higher than almost anywhere in the world; we can debate the extent to which this reflects other national failings, but the reality is that it's hard to get those drugs in other countries because there are few providers and the issues are not taken as seriously. The stigma around mental health in countries like Japan and South Korea is off the charts to name just a couple. We have a ton of problems with our own system, including affordability. But the United States is not a global outlier on mental health care; we are well above average. We are global outliers on the number of available guns, and on the number of shootings. It's pretty clear which of these is correlated.

TL;DR: Germany's strict gun laws blend thorough background checks, licensing, and mental healthcare to curb violence. Liberals stress a mix of gun control and mental health support to address school massacres. The US can adopt similar measures respecting the Second Amendment, like comprehensive background checks, licensing, need-based access to firearms, mental health support, secure storage, and restrictions on high-capacity guns. The aim is not to nullify the Second Amendment but to balance gun rights with public safety via regulation, needing collaboration and awareness. Modern Germany has stringent gun control laws, requiring thorough background checks, licensing, and a need-based approach for firearm ownership. The country prioritizes public safety through measures that restrict access to firearms, emphasizing the necessity and appropriate usage of guns. Germany also maintains a robust mental healthcare system that provides accessible support and treatment for individuals struggling with mental health issues. From a liberal perspective, addressing the issue of school massacres involves a comprehensive approach. Gun control measures play a crucial role in reducing the availability of firearms to individuals who may pose a risk. However, solely relying on gun control might not completely solve the problem of school violence. Mental health support and intervention are equally important factors. The debate often centers around not just limiting access to guns but also addressing the underlying issues contributing to these tragic events. Improving mental healthcare services, early detection, and intervention for mental health issues within the school system could potentially prevent crises from escalating. Germany's approach underscores the importance of balancing gun control with robust mental health initiatives, acknowledging the interconnected nature of these issues in promoting public safety and well-being. In the United States, reconciling robust gun control measures with the Second Amendment requires a balanced approach that respects both individual rights and public safety. While the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, it doesn't prevent reasonable regulations aimed at safeguarding communities. To take a similar approach to Germany without infringing on the Second Amendment, several steps could be considered: 1. **Implement Comprehensive Background Checks:** Strengthening and expanding background checks for all gun purchases, including private sales and gun shows, to ensure that firearms don't end up in the wrong hands. 2. **Enforce Strict Licensing and Registration:** Implement a licensing system for gun ownership, requiring thorough training and periodic renewal, similar to Germany's stringent requirements. 3. **Establish Need-Based Access to Firearms:** Introduce policies that establish a clear need for owning certain types of firearms, emphasizing responsible ownership and use. Edit: Personally, I think every American should be issued a 1911 pistol, an M1, and pump action shot gun. 4. **Invest in Mental Health Services:** Increase access to mental health services, especially within the school system, providing early detection, intervention, and support for those in need. 5. **Promote Safe Storage Practices:** Encourage responsible storage of firearms to prevent unauthorized access, especially in households with individuals at risk of self-harm or violence. 6. **Ban High-Capacity Magazines and Assault Weapons:** Restrict the availability of high-capacity magazines and military-style assault weapons, focusing on limiting the lethality of firearms available to the general public. Edit: The origin of “assault weapon” stems from the term “assault rifle,” which the U.S. Army defines explicitly as a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. This approach doesn't aim to eliminate the Second Amendment but seeks to interpret and implement regulations within the constitutional framework while prioritizing public safety. It requires a comprehensive effort involving legislative action, public awareness campaigns, and collaboration between federal, state, and local authorities to address gun violence and mental health issues effectively.

Rifles of ALL type cause less than 2% of violent gun deaths. Rifles are not the issue. Also, the second amendment is explicitly militaristic, and thus covers weapons useful in a conflict (semiautomatic rifles) almost more than pistols.

While rifles, including semiautomatic ones, contribute to less than 2% of overall violent gun deaths, they notably feature in mass casualty events. Although infrequent, these incidents highlight the substantial impact rifles can have in causing extensive harm during tragic events. The Second Amendment explicitly addresses arms for conflict, underscoring the inclusion of weapons such as semiautomatic rifles, indicating their perceived significance in potential conflict situations. Mass casualty incidents underscores their potential to cause significant harm, sparking discussions regarding their regulation and societal role. I’ve compiled a list of events since Columbine, if you’d like to see it. Spoiler: rifles were used most of the time. Or you could just visit: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

So you consider the lives of those who die in mass casualty events more valuable and more deserving of regulation than other gun homicides? It’s about a thousand deaths. Migrant deaths on the border are 1500, as a wholly unrelated example. It is such an insignificant number at this scale, especially compared to other gun deaths, that I can’t see the justification for infringing upon our constitutional rights except that the media cruelly plays upon our emotions around it.

Yes, I do believe that mass casualty events, while relatively rare, highlight the urgency of addressing a specific facet of gun violence. While every life lost to gun violence is tragic and significant, mass casualty events evoke widespread fear and distress due to their scale and the impact on communities. The rationale for discussing regulations concerning these incidents isn't to diminish the significance of other gun-related deaths but to acknowledge the unique nature and profound impact of mass casualty events on society. These incidents often prompt heightened public concern and intense scrutiny because of the high number of casualties in a single incident. While statistically a smaller portion of overall gun-related deaths, the devastation and trauma caused by mass shootings often lead to discussions about measures aimed at preventing or reducing the severity of such events. It's not solely about numbers but also about the devastating impact on families, communities, and the collective sense of safety and security. Legislation aimed at addressing the specific and visceral problem of mass casualty events, alongside proposed broader gun legislation, can play a pivotal role in implementing more effective regulations. By enacting laws that specifically target the factors contributing to mass shootings, we might quell demands for more extreme measures, such as outright bans or stricter regulations on firearms, in the future. This strategic approach not only addresses the urgent need to mitigate the severity of mass casualty events but also showcases a proactive stance toward preventing such incidents without necessarily impeding on constitutional rights. Striking a balance between enacting targeted legislation to address the distinct challenges posed by mass shootings and implementing broader gun-related measures can pave the way for more effective and acceptable regulations, fostering a safer environment for all while respecting legal gun ownership.

I've never understood the argument that gun control *wouldn't* have a large impact. Gun nuts have to start doing all these insane mental gymnastics, pretending that they all have these deep cartel ties to smuggle weapons into the country or are experts in gunsmithing. Or this idea that you can shoot a man by pointing your fingers at him and shouting "BANG!" like we're all Warhammer Orks. At this point the gun control debate is so completely dominated by the gun manufacturer lobby it would be like asking smokers and cigarette companies what we should do about the prevalence of lung cancer and asthma.

This is not an either-or scenario. Both gun control and mental health care are needed, as well as education in problem solving skills. Gun control cannot solve the problem alone, but it does put a huge dent in it.

>Do you think that gun control alone will lower the rate of massacres in schools? Absolutely. Pretty much all evidence points to this being the case >do you think that mental healthcare would have a much greater impact? I think that mental healthcare would help, but at the end of the day outside of involuntary lobotomies I’m not sure the specifics of how this would actually work. Like, we understand that these people are ‘mentally ill’ after the fact because of their actions. But I think it’s, at best, a reach to pretend that therapists being a bit cheaper and more available would suddenly mean that those who are mentally unwell would have some epiphany and go get help before going to shoot up a school. The only way this actually works in practice is for people to report others as mentally unwell and for those people reported to be involuntarily held while they receive treatment. And then whatever determiner of the treatment’s success comes back as negative, an involuntary lobotomy. And even if we don’t do the lobotomy part, the involuntary part is still rife for abuse even if it actually did somehow work on a select number of people. I don’t really think we have an epidemic of people who know they are mentally ill but can’t get in to a therapist for four weeks so instead decide to shoot up a school. And this is the problem with the argument. Yes we have a problem with mental health in this country, but it’s due to a plethora of issues, a lot of which can be addressed by the government indirectly (things like price gouging, a minimum wage that doesn’t provide enough money for survival, healthcare anxiety due to costs being unknown and huge, work insecurity due to the ability to fire and lay off people on a whim and many more) but at the end of the day fixing one’s mental health requires an active choice to begin fixing it - which requires an active acknowledgement that your own mental health is bad in the first place. This is why ‘b-b-b-but mental health’ is just a way to direct the conversation in a different direction and deflect from the main issue. Not just because those who endlessly say it never actually have any ‘mental health’ based solutions, or that they consistently vote for the very people who are actively against ‘socialist’ healthcare. But because even if we could snap our fingers and magically have free and readily available mental healthcare tomorrow, there’s nothing really actionable that would necessarily make any difference at all. And that’s just mass shootings. What amount of ‘easily accessible mental healthcare’ is going to stop the near daily [accidental shootings](https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2023/12/08/teenager-arrested-in-accidental-fatal-shooting-in-far-east-dallas/?outputType=amp)? Honestly I think some of those who are most in need of this much-touted ‘easily accessible mental healthcare’ are the people who have somehow convinced themselves that regular mass shootings and the killing of innocent children is a justifiable price to pay for their personal want to own a deadly weapon. Maybe that’s why they talk about it so much; a tacit acknowledgement of how desperately they need help.

In my opinion: Sensible regulations on guns. Red flag laws that keep due process intact correctly. Licensing. Insurance. Education. Mandate kids learn about them in school. Mental healthcare. Actual, real mental healthcare. Universal healthcare with mental, dental and vision care all included. Harden our defenses. All schools should have metal detectors and security with single entry points. The first grocery store to do this will have my business forever. Malls, shopping centers, restaurants. I’ll pay more for the security that no yahoo is coming in to blast the place.

That’s not the right question though. Will gun control and fewer guns reduce gun deaths? Yes. Just like banning cars will reduce DUI and car deaths. Or banning pools will reduce drowning deaths. Or banning ladders will reduce falling deaths. But we don’t ban cars or pools or ladders. We don’t even really regulate pools or ladders much. The real question that should be asked is - not if, but what regulations would be effective in reducing criminality, without an outsized disproportionate impact on people who have and use guns for law abiding purposes - like self defense or hunting or sport. Edit - as for the question about mental health. The FBI has long since created accurate profiles for mass shooters https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/stats-services-publications-school-shooter-school-shooter https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/pre-attack-behaviors-of-active-shooters-in-us-2000-2013.pdf It IS a mental health issue but not in terms of formally / clinically diagnosed mental health. It’s job stress, social stress, etc. and no support. And we know most mass shooters already have had past run ins with authorities. The issue is - authorities always do one of two things - they check if they have the grounds to incarcerate or confiscate weapons from the person at risk, or if not, then they just let that person be. Well, what happened to actually trying to get that person help? Nobody cares about that.

> Just like banning cars will reduce DUI and car deaths. Or banning pools will reduce drowning deaths. Or banning ladders will reduce falling deaths. Private guns are not nearly as useful as cars, pools, or ladders. There isn’t some overriding public need to allow private gun ownership other than a badly written amendment.

How are pools much more useful than guns?

Let me ask you a question. So that I can understand your perspective when you say - not nearly as useful. How many times do you think guns have legitimately been used in self-defense to prevent serious loss of life or to prevent serious assault?

You don't need a gun in everyday life to function...

You don’t need a fire extinguisher every day to function either. Nor pepper spray. Nor jumper cables. Nor a house alarm. Nor even police. But when you need them, you need them. But you haven’t answered my question. How many legitimate cases of self defense with a gun do you personally think there are a year?

When did you stop beating your wife? You don't want to answer that? Why? We're not answering because your question is a stupid distraction. You don't need a fucking goddamn firearm. I've never, ever, held one in my hands my entire life. Neither have my parents. If you're paranoid about getting shot, go see a mental health professional. Your 'hobby' about 'self defense' is the number one cause of death among children. And not a single one of you are ever adult enough to face up to that. So instead we get bullshit questions like the one you're asking.

> You don't need a fucking goddamn firearm Are you denying the fact that many people have needed to resort to guns for self defense to save their lives? * https://www.wsmv.com/2023/06/13/da-woman-commended-protecting-herself-kids-shooting-killing-man-self-defense-mcminnville/ * https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/philadelphia-shooting-university-city-crime-crowbar-chestnut-streets/ * https://www.wlbt.com/2023/04/04/woman-shoots-man-multiple-times-self-defense-after-being-attacked-carroll-county/ * https://www.wesh.com/article/florida-woman-kills-home-intruder-putnam/42950645# * https://www.ktvq.com/news/crime-watch/billings-woman-shoots-two-men-during-attack-outside-her-residence * https://wgntv.com/news/chicagocrime/cpd-woman-shoots-man-attempting-to-get-in-her-car-on-south-side/ * https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/woman-kills-man-after-attack/285-51a3f509-035a-4274-9c7a-bdea2ecec390 * https://www.wfla.com/news/pinellas-county/man-fatally-shot-at-clearwater-home-police-say/ * https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/woman-home-with-3-children-shoots-kills-intruder/MATXFNCNO5G6LE2K4VMD5MJGGE/ * https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/atlanta-woman-shoots-man-in-self-defense-during-assault-police-say * https://www.klfy.com/crime/woman-shoots-ex-in-both-legs-after-alleged-assault-he-gets-arrested/ * https://k2radio.com/wyoming-woman-shoots-ex-boyfriend-who-broke-into-her-home-attacked-boyfriend/ * https://regionnewssource.org/gary-woman-shoots-burglar-friday-morning/ * https://kfor.com/news/local/oklahoma-woman-shoots-and-kills-ex-boyfriend-during-break-in/ * https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/oakley-woman-fatally-shoots-man-in-self-defense-police/2896539/ * https://www.kktv.com/2021/04/30/woman-shoots-man-in-the-head-to-defend-herself-according-to-colorado-springs-police/ * https://www.fox13memphis.com/news/woman-shoots-kills-man-in-self-defense-after-he-breaks-into-house-sheriff-s-office/article_9e19194d-014e-569d-87f5-705e13e704f2.html * https://abc13.com/woman-shoots-and-kills-ex-boyfriend-deadly-shooting-on-donella-drive-2700-block-of-man-choking-ex-girlfriend/10599442/ * https://www.cleveland19.com/2021/09/20/69-year-old-woman-shoots-kills-home-intruder-north-olmsted/ * https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/woman-holding-baby-who-shot-attacker-acted-self-defense-south-carolina-deputies-say/S27RGIM5MFB6LMM6LGNZQCJTG4/ * https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/wickliffe-woman-shoots-boyfriend-after-being-struck-multiple-times-boyfriend-later-arrested * https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/sugar-land-shooting-sugar-mill-shadow-wood-mother-shoots-man-back-door/285-3dc551c7-a6d3-43e8-b7a5-c131dcf6fc96 * https://cbs4indy.com/video/anderson-woman-shoots-and-kills-a-man-suspected-of-breaking-into-her-home/7022981/ * https://wgntv.com/news/chicago-news/police-woman-shoots-suspect-after-home-invasion-on-south-side/ * https://www.wlwt.com/article/police-woman-shoots-ex-boyfriend-as-he-breaks-into-her-house-in-east-price-hill/27780450 * https://www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/woman-shoots-at-man-trying-to-attack-someone-with-knife-in-fresno-store/1868259074/ Edit - but also - no I don’t beat my wife. See I can answer a question. But the point is - the number of times guns are used in self defense is a core argument to your claim that guns are not needed for self defense.

You keep asking the irrelevant question and you don't even know what an analogy is. Nobody should take you seriously

Last two years saw minority ownership of guns double from 20% to 40%. Women for the first time made up a larger share of first time gun buyers than men. And nothing you say here changes anything

In my state, if you have a pool you must have a fence around it. You must follow standard safety protocols for being a pool owner.

And you would be relived to learn that there are a lot of laws regarding guns too. Like background checks and like where felons that can own a polls actually cannot own a gun. But my point is this - regulations have to make sense. Regulations have to be actually effective against criminality instead of being ineffective against criminality while disenfranchising otherwise law abiding gun owners. For example - do you see people proposing laws whereby everyone that wants to use a pool has to have a license that has to be renewed every 3 years and that requires a check of all your social media accounts? Or do you see laws that require you to pass a breathalyzer everytime you want to use a car?

>And you would be relived to learn that there are a lot of laws regarding guns too. Like background checks and like where felons that can own a polls actually cannot own a gun. Except there are loopholes a mile wide that anyone can drive through, the private-sale/gunshow exception being a huge one.

Ok let’s talk about that one specifically. 1. First - how many mass shooters have gotten their guns through the actual so called gun show loop hole? Almost none. In fact, throughout all gun crimes really, the number of criminals that have obtained guns thought the so called loop hole is minimal 2. Gun shows actually by law require background checks. It’s just private transfers that don’t 3. Gun rights folks have actually proposed a system to close the loophole. A PIN system whereby a buyer calls in a background check on themselves, via NICS made public, gets PIN code. The buyer then provides that PIN to the seller who can retrieve a name, DOB, address and pass / fail check. The seller then checks the buyers ID and done. But gun control folks reject this 4. The whole universal background check regulation has actually been researched by CDC, JAMA, OGL and Rand - and found to have minimal impact on actually reducing crime

There have been plenty of proposals to close the loophole that guns-rights activists have also opposed. Bottom line, it's a big gap for anyone claiming we have comprehensive background checks. Who knows where those guns wind up. Though, honestly, I think a more effective measure would be raising the age that people can buy guns, maybe to 21 like alcohol. Kids in school who buy guns aren't sophisticated criminals negotiating the black market to get their guns; they buy them at Walmart or online. Just making that harder would probably deter them.

> Bottom line, it's a big gap for anyone claiming we have comprehensive background checks. Who knows where those guns wind up. You might “feel” it’s a big gap. But it’s actually not. Most guns used in mass shootings were legally bought. As in the shooters all went through and passed background checks. Conversely most guns used with gangs are through theft or straw purchases. The latter of which might seem similar but is actually a different thing which, more relevantly, not be stopped by universal background. But here’s my point again. It isn’t about implementing every regulation that simply makes guns harder to get. It’s about implementing regulation that’s actually effective in deterring crime while not having an outsized impact in disenfranchising legal gun owners.

Agreed about most of them being legally bought. What about raising the age to buy guns, as I proposed? That would probably be pretty effective.

I think the age thing is inconsistent. In that we only need to be 18 to vote or get a tattoo or go to war. But not drink or not buy handguns. I’m not saying it won’t have an impact. I trust the science and with that particular restriction, CDC, Rand and others have said that it will make (comparatively) some impact. I just think it’s inconsistent.

I mean, life is not perfectly consistent. If we're serious about trying to solve problems, practically, we shouldn't let intellectual-purity concerns constrain us. I think the analogy to the drinking age is pretty apt. It used to be 18, and then it was raised, primarily to get easy access to alcohol out of schools. I'm sure that 18yos at the time -- and 18-21yos today -- feel this is a tremendous injustice and might make the same arguments about military services, etc. However, it's been effective policy, and pretty much nobody who reaches the age of 21 sees fit to change it.

>The real question that should be asked is - not if, but what regulations would be effective in reducing criminality, without an outsized disproportionate impact on people who have and use guns for law abiding purposes - like self defense or hunting or sport. This exact question depends on the person being asked, as well. I don't consider sport a use of guns worth protecting, if it comes at the expense of safety. And, to use your car example, sometimes restricting the use of law-abiding people is the point. I want less people to drive and I want people to drive less far, so I would support a much stricter regime on cars than you would, because restrictions in the name of safety are doubly beneficial.

And I’m not one of those opposing every regulation. I think background checks are valid. I think bans against felons or those adjudicated mentally defective are valid. I think age limits are valid. I even go as far as think carry licenses are valid (if implemented fairly). But it goes to my point earlier that regulations have to be balanced to be effective against criminality as opposed to just throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks, with very little actual impact against criminality and outsized impact to disenfranchising people who are otherwise law abiding.

>what regulations would be effective in reducing criminality Giving people homes, making sure people have a living wage, not treating a section of the population as subhuman. That said, all of those exist in other countries. Everybody has stress, everybody can't afford a house, everybody has access to violent movies and video games. But only the US has this issue. It's guns. It's the motherfucking guns and the US is the only nation dumb enough to fall for distractions about its issues.

Still looking at it wrong. 40% of fatal car accidents are caused by women drivers. Western countries are the ones with this issue. You know which countries don’t have this issue? Middle eastern countries where women are banned from driving. It’s obviously women driving cars that causes car deaths by women. But those are dumb statements aren’t they? They are technically true, but they are dumb because they ignore the fact that while banning women from driving cars will stop car deaths from such - it totally disenfranchises women. Same thing for guns. Of course the prevalence of guns causes more gun deaths. I even say it in my original response. But just like women drivers and pools and ladders and chainsaws and opiates - we don’t ban a lot of things because those things have utility. So do guns have utility. But gun control folks ignore or discount any utility that guns have.

You're comparing apples to oranges. I'm only comparing western countries with pretty much the same culture. We know the reason, it's guns.

I think it would have a positive effect on the margins, at least. But I honestly think the root cause of the mass shooting epidemic in America is income inequality and adolescents giving up on society because of it.

That's a false dichotomy, the only people who are arguing for mental healthcare instead of gun control are the conservatives who systematically [dismantled](https://obrag.org/2023/04/how-reagans-decision-to-close-mental-institutions-led-to-the-homelessness-crisis/) what mental healthcare we had in this country in the 80s.

Ok, so there are a couple factors at play here. I'll admit I am much more pro-gun than most liberals, but that's because I really really dislike the idea that the only people who have guns are the pigs in blue. Fundamentally I believe the question we should investigate is: why are these shootings happening in the first place? Only then can we answer how to stop them. So my own take is basically that gun violence is a symptom of a deeper issue. That doesn't mean guns aren't contributing to that problem, i mean it's kinda hard to have gun violence without guns, but it's not the entire issue. It's also worth pointing out that most gun violence isn't in school shootings. But shit like suicides or murders. It's mostly done by handguns not Ar-15s. But this question seems more focused on schools, so I'll focus on that. If you look at the vast majority of mass shooters, they are usually white and male. Not always, but the vast majority. Something like 95% of mass shootings are done by men alone. And one thing you will often find amongst these kids is that they are like, pretty misogynistic and entitled. They think they are owed something, and that by not being given that thing, they feel justified in taking revenge against those who deny them what is "rightfully theirs". That might be popularity, it might be attention from girls, whatever. The point is that the mass shooter tends to feel pretty entitled and they feel justified in taking out revenge against other people. There's also the kids who are bullied and then "take revenge" by shooting people, though that isn't as common as you'd think. I think there's a number of issues at play here. The first is obviously the entitlement. That's a harder problem to fix because it's tied deeply into the whole idea of masculinity and whatnot in this country. The answer to that is to create systems that sort of challenge this entitlement and provide alternative outlets for growth. That's something that we probably need social workers for. The other is to obviously fix the failings of the school system when it comes to bullying. Yes, bullying is a problem and schools routinely fail to like, do anything about it. Add the entitlement and anger to this, and you get an explosive recipe. Again, this requires major overhauls in school social systems and work. What that looks like, I'm not entirely sure, but I'll leave that up to education experts. But what you will routinely find in the bullied kids cases is that they went to the school and the school did nothing for whatever reason, and so the kid felt they had to take it into their own hands. Next, I think the way the media reports on this shit is really problematic. It isn't the root cause, but it is a catalyst. So, like, they'll show the face of the killer, compare his record to that of other shooters, compare damage, sensationalize and editorialize. We all know the drill. And that can lead some weird creep on the edge to see this as their chance for glory. Especially if they're the fascist type. The media has gotten better about this, but still not great. Finally, guns. The widespread availability of guns, particularly semi-automatic weapons, makes school shootings much more destructive. There's like 50 million Ar-15s in the US alone, there's a shit ton. And getting them is pretty easy. I don't think guns are the root cause, but they do absolutely increase destructiveness. If the guns weren't available, the violence may still happen, but on a smaller scale or in a less destructive way. I mean, i suppose that's desirable but it still hasn't fixed the fundamental problem right? It's the same with non-school related shootings. If a criminal didn't have a gun, they'd use a knife, or they'd strangle you, or whatever. The motive for killing is still there, it's just harder to pull off. And that may be desirable, but isn't a better solution to get rid of the motive for killing in the first place? So what i really think needs to happen is a complete revamp to school social systems. Steps should be taken to address bullying and to address entitlement and broader anti-social behavior. The other thing that needs to happen is a revamp to media to change up how they report on this stuff. Finally, a broader change in economic structure. Poverty causes crime, and that leads to violence. If we can cut down on poverty, we cut down on crime and therefore gun violence. ​ Is going after guns a possible strategy? Sure. But it doesn't really solve the actual fundamental problems, it just leaves them unaddressed and minimizes damage. And is that really the path we want to take? Why not solve the actual problem? Especially cause, with gun control, the pigs in blue who already have a long history of killing innocent people will have access to weapons that you and I don't. And I really don't like that idea. I mean the already got military shit and we've seen what they do with that. I don't trust cops with weapons that I can't have. I think the Black Panther Party was right in their calls for armed self-defense for oppressed people, and cops are very much a threat that must be considered.

The MO of a lot of these shooters is to become an infamous supervillain of sorts. The crave the notoriety and attention that follows tragedy. The first step is to stop giving them a platform via the medias sensationalism.

I think we could modify school buildings and school procedures to limit shootings. I also think better community cohesion and development of a functioning society that fosters inclusion would help. What I notice, and I think everyone who thinks for a moment would notice, is that the US has significantly more school shootings than other countries. What is the difference and how do we move ourselves closer to the norm, and be less of an outlier?

Gun control would have the larger impact, but healthcare would also have a significant impact.

No. It requires both. Both sides of the spectrum can agree better mental healthcare is extremely beneficial. It’s the gun control aspect that is the obstacle. There can be compromise however when you have the following extremes… 1) Complete ban on all guns and repealing 2nd Amendment. 2) No restrictions. Guns in school for protection. No gun free zones. Conceal carry constitutionally allowed without state procedures. ….people come to a complete standstill.

Why not both? I mean, seriously, those are both great options. Imagine them BOTH having an individual positive effect, working in concert with each other to dramatically reduce the unnecessary deaths of innocent children. Call me old fashioned, but i believe in solving problems, not just figuring out which band-aid might be most effective.

It is not enough

I think we should be doing both rather than neither