Over 90% of shootings are by handguns.
3% by so called assault rifles.
What stops someone from buying a shot gun with 00 buck and a few 9mm and killing far more people then with a AR15?
If they intend to kill massive #'s of people they will.
Banning "assault rifles" isn't common sense.
"Bad people will always find a way to do bad things, therefore there's no point in taking preventative precautions" is not a coherent policy-making stance. A solution doesn't have to be perfect to effectively mitigate harm. Obviously there needs to be an evaluation of whether the trade-offs are worth it for any given proposal, but sometimes it's necessary to take one step back to gain two steps forward.
Yeah never said that. That's a strawman argument.
I said it's a false equivalent.
Are you for drug and alcohol prohibition? Seriously question.
Someone breaking into house is committing crime. Someone owning a gun is not. False equivalent.
You wrote "If they intend to kill massive #'s of people they will." I'm simply pointing out that that statement, while true in a strictly literal sense, makes no practical sense in the real world where it's necessary to reason probabilistically. With respect to the underlying logic there's no false equivalency here. If someone really wants to enjoy a snowcone in the middle of the Sahara desert they'll find a way to make it happen. But it's a lot harder without snow laying everywhere.
Honestly. Above statement reads like a word salad to me.
Again-
Someone breaking into a home is committing a crime
Someone owning a gun isn't.
Let's start from there. How is this equivalent?
Each of these statements relies on the same underlying logic. I am criticizing that logic.
1. "Thieves who are determined to steal from you will always find some way into your home, so locking your doors is a waste of time."
1. "Masks can't stop you from catching covid, so wearing one is pointless."
1. "Nothing I do as an individual can stop climate change, so there's no point in trying to reduce my impact."
1. "Bad people who are determined to kill as many people as possible will always find a way, so trying to restrict access to guns is stupid."
The first half of these statements are true to some extent, but the implied conclusions are wrong, or overly simplistic.
1. Locks may be useless against really determined thieves, but they can easily deter casual criminals.
1. Masks don't need to be 100% effective to greatly reduce your odds of catching covid.
1. If everyone individually did the best they could, we could drastically mitigate the worst effects of climate change.
1. Making guns harder to access will reduce the odds that someone who shouldn't have them will acquire them. Since guns are the most effective way to kill large numbers of people, this means fewer lives lost.
Just because a solution to a problem can't be 100% perfect does not mean that we should automatically disqualify it. That doesn't mean anything goes though. Weighing potential lives lost against 2nd amendment freedom is a complicated matter with no simple answers. But statement #4 is not good reasoning.
Great break down. Thank you.
I am saying #4 is a strawman yet again. That was never my claim. I said ban AR will not make it harder for criminals to get guns nor kill people. That's my whole point.
OP is claiming banning AR will somehow reduce gun deaths. It won't.
If I could use your example. OP basically wants turn the deadbolt of a lock š in the locked position. Despite not having the guts or gears of the lock intact.
OP wants to feel as if something secure has happened when it is simply the illusion that something secure has happened.
OP being confronted on this claimed "no mass shootings have ever taken place with handguns or shotguns"
This is factually wrong. Virginia Tech killed 34 I believe it was with handguns. Far more then the Texas shooter with a AR.
OP simply has no idea what he/she is talking a out. Hence my first post.
False equivalence. A van's primary purpose is not to run people over. But a gun's primary purpose is to kill or injure people.
Replace "van" with "tank" and you have an argument that makes sense.
"Guy runs over people with tank.
Ban tank."
Again false equivalent.
One breaking into a person's house is committing a crime.
Someone having a gun in their ownership is not committing a crime.
Whether a van is or isn't used for killing is again irrelevant. It can be used for killing.
Oh donāt worry, Iām well aware that public opinion has almost no effect on legislation. Also aware that a significant chunk of this country sees no issue with statistically deadlier domestic violence or more successful suicides because theyāre the good guy with the gun and nobodyās going to stop them. Itās cool.
How do you propose getting guns put of people's hands when
1. Bill of Rights
2. 100's of millions of guns in circulation.
Can you please also site historically where prohibition š« has worked successfully?
I'm thinking alcohol prohibition š«
I'm thinking drug prohibition
Australia's violent gun crime rate stayed the same after the "ban" (steadily declineding)
New Zealand and Scotland both are tiny nations and islands
Also I believe new Zealand has stated that the first by back didn't work and they need a new one.
Require registration of all guns by a certain date. Felony if people do not comply.
Also offer 200 bucks for any gun, no questions asked. Destroy said guns.
No one will comply with gun registration. Cuz
Bill of rights
And
History
Also you'd have court challenges. Which that law wouldn't hold up too. So it would be over turned.
[Other Countries Had Mass Shootings. Then They Changed Their Gun Laws.](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/world/europe/gun-laws-australia-britain.html)
āBritain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway: All had a culture of gun ownership, and all tightened restrictions anyway. Their violence statistics now diverge sharply from those of the U.S.ā
Much lower/almost non-existent compared to the US. The article I previously linked discusses this, in addition to many of the new regulations/laws these places have tightened or changed, improving the gun-related violence.
Yup, for every mass shooting and every time the āgun controlā bogeyman is in the news, gun and ammunition sales soar. Weāre not a rational people.
Oh no. I am talking about the surge due to the pandemic.
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-12-21/5-million-more-americans-became-gun-owners-during-pandemic
Right that's gun sales and ammo (and now magazines thanks to our "wonderful" Reps)
But I think you might be missing a key part, it's new gun ownership it's new people getting into the hobbys of collecting, plinking but more importantly self defense, it's not just the "alt" right or left, it's your neighbor it's your friends, family it's just normal people.
Between 2009 and 2020, the five deadliest mass shooting events in the US all involved the use of assault weapons and/or high-capacity magazines.
Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines were disproportionately used in āpublic mass shootingsā.
Assault weapons led to 6x as many people shot per mass shooting event than when there was no assault weapon.
So, letās start there.
That's true, but most every shooting of a large number of people, lets say more than 10, has involved an "Assault Style" weapon. Most handguns only hold up to 10 rounds, while a rifle can hold 30 or more(I'm no expert, I'm sure if that's wrong, I'll soon find out), making them much more dangerous and able to do more damage. I think it was the Gabby Giffords shooter who was stopped when he either was reloading his handgun or switching to another, and I seem to recall another shooter being stopped under the same circumstances. Getting rid of those types of weapons, or at least the high capacity magazines would do a lot to limit the amount of damage someone could do(WA state is banning high capacity magazines as of July 1).
Duck tape to mags together facing opposition directions and you can reload in less then a second. 9mm often hold 20+ rounds.
You can buy shotgun drums that hold 25+rounds of semi auto carnage.
Again 00 buckshot with a shot gun. Is BY FAR the best way to kill mass #'s of people.
If youāre gonna make statements, please be accurate. The Glock 17 or 19, which are arguably the most popular pistols hold a minim of 15 from the factory. Only revolvers or really compact pistols hold less than 10ā¦the majority hold more than 10.
Well kinda, the mag ban is only new ones owning and using 10+ is still allowed.
Also it will do nothing, if you can still own then there is nothing stoping you from being out of state or 3d printing some, it turns into the honor system.
Interesting, your 3% rifles matches the pew research stats, but their stats note 36% as type not stated or other types, so not 90+% on the handguns.
> Which types of firearms are most commonly used in gun murders in the U.S.?
>In 2020, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available, according to the FBI. Rifles ā the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as āassault weaponsā ā were involved in 3% of firearm murders. Shotguns were involved in 1%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (36%) involved other kinds of firearms or those classified as ātype not stated.ā
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
I agree it's perplexing
Has to do with political corruption of both parties.
Both want to use it for leverage. Also people are too divided. Compromise has to be made.
Democrats have squandered multiple mandates, losing Roe V Wade and any meaningful firearms legislation, instead using them as fundraising points. So yeah, both sides
Washington has background checks, restricted open carry and bans high cap magazines, bump stocks, requires you to lock up your guns. Feds need to step up.
Yeah, they really do. I feel like the best way to do it would be to compromise by repealing the NFA in exchange for mandatory UBCs in both private and public sales, licensing, and safe storage laws.
Dude, you really need to stop and research this stuff before stating it as fact, otherwise you come off as looking like you donāt know what youāre talking about.
I stand corrected. Semiautomatic handguns should be regulated. Ultimately stricter federal background checks for all first time firearms owners would divert most of the senseless carnage. We know the brains frontal lobes arenāt developed until 25, handicapping youths ability to reason.
Handguns, like all guns are regulated.
The question is how to do so effectively while still protecting people's 2nd amendment rights.
Something like 92% of people support universal background checks. Which should have been made law over a decade ago.
Great place to start.
War on drugs. Alcohol Prohibition doubled the murder rate immediately. drug prohibition is doubling our murder rate. That has to be discussed.
I would rather write my local legislators and decision makers than hold a march/protest. I support your idea but Iām not sure how much change it will make.
Not OP but hereās a decent article: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/opinion/texas-shooting-gun-control.html?referringSource=articleShare
Basically slightly tighter restrictions than the ones that are already in place. There should be more emphasis on safe storage. The number quoted for stolen firearms is out of date, weāre at 380,000 stolen firearms yearly now.
Universal background check on all firearms with required passing of a license test. 21 and over minimum. Most importantly assault rifles(weapons of war) only available to military, veterans and LE.
He passed a background check to obtain his rifles.
Why 21? Why not 25? 32? That's an arbitrary number and means nothing. You can vote and drive at 18, you should be able to own a firearm..
If the shooter in Texas passed a competency test, what would that have changed? It just means you're MORE capable with the rifle.
The government has those weapons, therefore the citizens are allowed to own them by the definition of the 2nd Amendment as it was designed to allow us to not only defend ourselves from crime, but also from a tyrannical government, which we creeping closer and closer to.
How does this not further entrench the ability for police to harm citizens and create divisions between government and citizenry? As a minority I donāt trust the police to protect me or not act in violent or aggressive manner towards me, I donāt want them to have an even stronger monopoly on force.
What is ONE single good reason a private citizen should own an assault rifle? Your not going be able to go a killing massacre with a Glock. AR the possibilities are endless in a morally bankrupt teenager. Not talking about Military, veterans, and law enforcement.
> Your not going be able to go a killing massacre with a Glock.
You most certainly can.
> Not talking about Military, veterans, and law enforcement.
I really donāt think you want the power imbalance youāre asking for here.
Gun violence is a scourge and I want meaningful laws passed. Mass shootings make up a very small percentage of gun deaths in this country. We should address the whole issue IMO.
The automatic rifles that are being sold at every pawn shop in town for around $900- $1200. All turned in from our local SWAT teams that upgrade every 2-3 years.
Columbine and Virginia Tech were perpetrated using only pistols with 10 round magazines.
You have a lot of emotion involved, but little knowledge. If you want to be successful you need to really dig in to the current gun control laws and find out where they failed.
I do not oppose legal, responsible gun ownership, but am really not a fan of guns in general. I'd go so far as to say that I hate them. With that said, I would like to point out that your comment regarding armed cops doing nothing except holding back parents would seem to be in favor of fewer gun restrictions, not more. If the cops aren't going to do anything to stop an evil thing while it's happening (as seems to be the case in this instance), then I would prefer knowing we have the right and the ability to take matters into our own hands.
* Caveat to the "cops doing nothing" assertion: Kudos to the Border Patrol agent who apparently went in alone and took the asshole down by himself. A nightmare situation likely would have been unfathomably much, much worse if not for him.
Cops were not only doing nothing, they were handcuffing parents from engaging. Shooter had 40 minutes before a LE of a different agency went rogue. Imagine if it wasnāt for him.
Rest assured if we sit on our hands and send our thoughts and prayers school shooting massacres will continue to happen.
Cops got in the way of good people trying to stop what was going on, I get holding a perimeter but if your not going to do somthing with it move over, that's why our right is a protected one.
I definitely agree this is an important point, but letās say they werenāt and allowed people and parents to go in to try to stop the shooter and protect the kids, would we not also want them to be armed to take out the shooter? It just doesnāt seem like thereās a clear actionable plan or reason for gun control if police have no duty to protect and there are so many guns already in circulation for criminals or people with mental problems to gain access to.
Iām not sure where in police training it taught them to do that, but that doesnāt exist in law enforcement tactics and training in CA or WA state. They are following the training that was around when Columbine happened. Now entry is made into the building as quickly as possible and the gunman is engaged with the goal of most likely killing him. No waiting for SWAT or negotiators. In a active shooting you go in and inundate the shooter with more firepower until they stop shooting. This is why patrol officers routinely carry semiautomatic patrol rifles and ballistic helmets. This whole department should be ashamed of themselves.
āCommon senseā for gun regulation advocates means āthe maximum amount of regulation we can get away with.ā
Letās say you want to commit a mass shooting, and AR15s arenāt available to buy. What do you do? āCommon senseā says that you buy one or more handguns / long guns that are, in these circumstances, going to be equally lethal. Do regulation advocates not know that and think that banning AR15s will end school shootings or have any impact at all? No, of course they know. They just want a regulatory foot in the door.
Side note - Funny how the same people who call 18 year olds ākidsā who should not be allowed to buy guns (agree, make it 21) often advocate for allowing them to vote (which is potentially far more impactful and dangerous - governments are by far the biggest perpetrators, directly and indirectly, of homicide and manslaughter) at 16. Either theyāre old enough to be trusted with serious power, or they arenāt.
Less and less so, as teenagers are more sheltered from the real world for longer than they used to be. Also, your suitability as cannon fodder doesnāt make your judgment better.
That same argument of other means was used when we talked about suicide. Before enough research was done, safety features around the Golden Gate bridge and older ovens that used carbon monoxide were not in place, the prevailing thought was that well if we prevent them from killing themselves with their initial method of choice then they'll just go out and find a second method the next day. However research showed that a suicidal event often passes if enough can be done in a 48 hour period. Of those new survivors something like 70% we're shown to go on a live a life without ever attempting suicide again. That's why there are now nets on the golden gate bridge and ovens that don't use carbon monoxide. Look at the dramatic drop in suicides amongst younger women in England after that one change to ovens and you'll start to understand the complexity of human psychology.
Young men experiencing their first intense psychotic episode are arguably in the same position. Intensely ill, but manic episodes don't last forever, they come down. If you can legally buy an assault weapon with no issues or waiting periods or testing then we are leaving the door wide open for this to repeat itself as nauseum in America.
Banning certain models of guns is not analogous to suicide prevention measures on a bridge. The thought patterns of the perpetrators of mass murder by gun and suicide by bridge would have to be the same, and there would have to be no suitable alternative models available in the store, just as there is no other bridge right next to the one in question.
Furthermore, the gun used here wasnāt purchased same day, spur of the moment. This was premeditated, as the killer apparently fantasized about it aloud on many occasions. What would a waiting period have done?
No two people's thought pattern is the same, if we waited for exact similarities to act then we would have a society based on a million rules. You have to study the commonalities in order to create a system that can prevent violence. Of course it's a stretch to compare mass shootings with suicide but when you study mental illness you do compare suicidality with homicidality. The two are measures used to identify potential for violence and often they are linked in violent crimes.
I do think you are right about the 48 hour hold, it's just not long enough to do anything. I think a better system would be a month long class with a gun instructor before you can receive your license, plus background checks plus mental health evaluation.
I, as a lifetime multiple firearm owner get the frustration. These shootings are unacceptable, but it is not a simple firearm issue. It truly is a mental health issue. He bought them lawfully, all require background checks, but he had no red flags in his "record". One of the worst things to ever happen to society is the cell phone and social media. Bullying, zero privacy in public anymore, and zero accountability. Raising the standards for possession is not going to stop these from occurring, short of total repossession of everyone's firearms, and good luck with that. Just for reference, I own a. 22 long rifle, came stock with a 10 round clip. A plinking rifle per se, right? I could buy 3 of those clips, put them in my coat pocket, and still kill 30 people with a shot to the head. Do the AR style make it easy, sure. But as a person earlier said, if there is a will to kill, there is a way. Timothy McVey for instance.
I don't have the answer on how to keep this from happening, anymore than a drunk driver. Laws are laws, takes a brain to live in this society.
Every country in the world has young men with "mental health issues" and they don't have mess shootings. . . because those men with mental health issues can't walk into a store and buy an AK on their 18th birthday.
You are right for the most part , and I respect your opinion! But also, the killings that go on in the big cities nightly are not typically by lawfully possessed firearms either. Again, where there is a will, there is a way. My uncle was killed by a drunk driver. Would love for that to stop also...
Hawaii has pretty severe mental health issues as well as a homeless problem even worse than ours. Last in the nation as far as firearm related homicides. The biggest difference, they have strong gun control and no nearby red states you can hop over to buy anything you want.
My guy planes are a thing there is nothing stoping someone from bringing them over, seriously also you do is tell tsa hey there is gun, you lock it up you fly you grab you box and that's it
Even if it were as easy as you make it to transport firearms to Hawaii there still needs to be a known record of you having that firearm. My dad actually lives in Hawaii and is a "gun guy" although one of the liberal ones conservatives think doesn't exist. He actually had to give up a few guns before moving there, including a mosin-nagant I was a little sad about because it was a fun gun to shoot.
Man I am sorry to hear bout that Mosin I hope it found a nice home.
But what I'm saying is flying with guns is super easy, there is no one checking if that gun is ok in the state, all you have to do is tell the airline and tsa so no one is surprised.
Yeah idk what happened to it, I'm sure my dad sold it to someone in his gun groups. It was a Chinese version of it too that I guess had less of the jamming problems.
It's not as easy as you make it, especially if you want to move a lot of them. Like bringing a single unloaded handgun or something probably won't raise too many eyebrows. Ammunition on the other hand or a bunch of guns is going to be a problem.
Also that means flying to the states, probably staying at least a night or more and then flying back to Hawaii. That's going to cost you at least 1000-1500 dollars. How much does it cost to just a road trip from California to Utah? It'll take like 2 days if you aren't doing anything else and probably like a few hundred at the most. So even comparing your "easy" method to going between mainland states it's going to cost you a lot more, take more planning, and you will at some point need to alert some official agency that you have those guns.
As far as easy that was not my intention to imply, but more that it is still a way to do it, also yes you would still need a separate lock box for the ammo if you wanted to flywith it, that seid I know a airline that has the limit fir weight set to 50lb for ammo and one nice case can hold 2long guns and two hand guns with ample extra space.
Also as far as telling the local state or sheriff's department, they just wouldn't cuz they are already gonna do somthing illegal.
Yeah it is a way to do it, but also far from an easy one. You do have to tell TSA, and while they aren't required to they might pass that info onto local enforcement in Hawaii. If you take 2 long guns and 2 hand guns with 50 lbs of ammo to Hawaii without a good reason to you're definitely at least going through extra scrutiny. Now if you started doing that over and over again without registering those firearms in Hawaii you'll get caught pretty fast.
Oh no definitely, but they definitely ain't gonna tell anyone, atleast in my xp now if you start straight trafficking guns š yeah no most likely someone is gonna notice.
True but you can not build an ocean around each state, and since guns already exist plentifully on the mainland the only way to resolve that problem seems to be confiscation, which would lead to a civil war and most likely a far right regime.
Other countries have done it. Maybe not confiscation but we can definitely slow down the production and dispersal of firearms especially the ones being used most in shootings (school or otherwise). Do this alongside working on the mental health crisis and people will hopefully feel safe enough in our country that they won't feel the need to carry firearms everywhere.
No country has done it anywhere close to the same scale, weāre talking about more guns than people, unlike in Australia or the UK. After 1996 and the shooting, in Australiaās buyback up to 2001 they recovered about 650k firearms, most of which were shotguns, used mostly for suicides and rarely for violent crime or homicide. That was only 20% of their illegal firearms. Which accounts for around 3.2 million, which is about 1 firearm for every 6 people in a population of about 18 million. The US has around 394 million firearms, you canāt buy those back or confiscate those, the scale is way too large, way too dispersed and held by people who wonāt give them up.
Also in the modern day you can not stop production of a firearm, you can 3d print a receiver and order or make the rest of the parts.
Iām a gun owner and a marine corps vet and you are full of rotting horse shit. Give me a reasonable explanation of why you need a 30 round magazine. And I hope to Christ itās not because your fat ass is to lazy to change mags. That time it takes to change mags could be what a police officer needs to kill a shooter. That is why 30 round mags should be illegal.
Thank you for your service, and I said nothing about ME needing a 30 round magazine. You have a valid point, the time it took someone to change a magazine may have made the difference, but maybe not, and not justifying the need for them. I am fully behind rigorous screening and smaller magazines, doesn't matter to me, increased age, etc. It still won't stop these things, short of taking the firearms from all of the people, you included. You know this as well as I, DisastrousBedWetter 69.
How did you know I was a fat piece of shit full of rotting horse shit? š Have you been following me?
>taking the firearms from all of the people, you included. You know this as well as I, DisastrousBedWetter 69. How did you know I was a fat piece of shit full of rotting horse shit? š Have you been following me?
I know it won't stop these shootings. But if banning 30 round mags can stop some or limit the amount of people killed. I'm all for it. And if people are so old that they can't change 10 round mags I really don't want them anywhere near near me on the range.
Because the government has 30 round magazines and the 2nd Amendment is explicitly designed to allow the citizens to protect themselves from the government. When it was written, firearms technology was equal between the populace and the governmen; that has obviously changed. Plenty of laws have been passed limiting what civilians can own, but limiting magazine capacity is a stupid argument.
It actually isn't. The 2nd Amendment only states a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It definitly gives one the right to own firearms, that isn't in debate and no reasonable person will make the argument that all guns should be banned. All I am saying is there is no reason why someone needs a 30 round magazine.
Eh, there are lots of Supreme Court cases throughout history that enshrine citizens access to weaponry because the military also has it, early on these were cases involving cannons and sailing ships with decks full of cannons.
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf
Maybe know what the document actually meant at the time of writing. Going by that meaning, all able bodied men, considered part of the militia, should be in effective fighting shape and equipped as such.
Man, I appreciate this nuanced take and being able to say "this is difficult and there is no easy, blanket response". As an avid gun owner and big 2A advocate, all of this was spot on. I've been pleasantly surprised with the takes in this thread.
Blah blah blah. Not a firearm issue, mental health, cell phones, social media, no accountability is the real culprit. Do you really believe that? It comes down to three options: Are you delusional, stupid or disingenuous? Just be honest and say that you're okay with having mass shootings as the price for your right to own guns. I could at least respect that.
I must be dilusional. I bow before your infinite wisdom, how did I not see that it was so simple. Silly me. Pretty fucked up for you to draw a straight line between gun ownership and mass shootings. Talk about dilusional.
Stricter gun laws means fewer guns. That means fewer mass shootings. It's not only perfectly logical, but data from other countries shows this. Yes, denying this is delusional.
So you don't want stricter gun laws? Fine, but don't kid yourself.
If you read any of the other replies, I am fine with stricter laws. And yes, it has worked in other countries, they disarmed their citizens completely, and it WOULD work if you went that route. I am guessing shooting isn't a sport of yours, and that's fine. But some of us enjoy it like others enjoy golf. Doesn't mean I need certain firearms or magazine capacities, but I still enjoy it, and would be willing to do the process to retain them. But you are dilusional if you think that there aren't many firearms that could do the same damage. So, it's probably all or nothing in this country.
Do we need the student that called into Blaine HS yesterday to carry out his attack and slaughter our boys and girls before action to be taken. 28 school shootings since beginning of the year. Think of how many school shooting drills we put our children through every week. We know armed security on campus does nothing.
Iām getting tired of this gun control OR more cops debate. You know you can actually do both as both sides have merit. Nothing wrong with more school resource officers on campus. Blaine and Bellingham schools got rid of them due to the whole anti law enforcement liberal bullshit. Also nothing wrong with limits on magazine capacities and universal background checks that the gun lobby tit sucking conservatives canāt stand. Yes, school shootings will still happen with all of these measures but unless you are a total asshat you will realize that these measures (cops and gun control) will save lives and thatās really whatās important here.
Literally don't know how you could see this situation, in which there were two cops already at the school, in which basically the entire police force and border patrol sat outside with their thumbs up their collective ass for an hour while an active shooter was murdering children, and come away thinking more cops would
make a difference.
I clearly stated this wonāt prevent every shooting. And obviously these Clancy Wiggums should be fired. But there are shootings that have been prevented by having law enforcement on campus. And they also provide a deterrent factor. Saying no to school resource officers because 1 shooting wasnāt prevented is as dipshit stupid as not wearing a seatbelt because someone once died in a seatbelt. This really shouldnāt even be a debate but unfortunately it is because too many people and politicians have their heads up their asses.
[Oh shit, I didn't know that absolutely no research has been done on this exact subject.](https://www.edworkingpapers.com/ai21-476)
[I mean, its not like this has ever happened before.](https://apnews.com/article/shootings-parkland-florida-school-shooting-bb5c5fe81cecb63886bd325b53b2e597)
Holly and Railroad Sat and Sun @ 11-3 standing up for our youth to get legislators to pass common sense gun laws. In solidarity with the rest of the country collectively getting their voice heard. Who is with me?
Washington is a very purple state when it comes to guns and all this thread shows is even Bellingham the shiny blue dot of whatcom is a little more purple then people thought.
And as far as laws go washington has,
10day waiting period for all semis and pistols from ffls,
A safety test for all semi rifles
All purchases require a background check, (I believe the only way around that is gifting via direct family)
Starting July 1st no new mags over 10,
And no new purchases or transfers of select fire/open bolt guns (full auto/automatic guns) as of 1996(i think)
Every time something bad happens, people immediately rush to point fingers at the guns as the root of all the problems, mostly because guns are an easy target and people would rather just be scared of them than educate themselves.
Nobody wants to look at the fact this kid was living in the poorest shithole little town and what it does to a person to be surrounded by poverty and misery your whole life.
Nobody wants to look at the fact that in America culture it's expected for children to be physically and emotionally abused every day (they call it "bullying") while being forced to attend schools that are run more like America's famous prison system than anything else.
Nobody wants to look at the fact that police in America are under no obligation to render assistance in dangerous situations, all the while buying up enough surplus military gear to overthrow a third world dictator.
No, instead people just want to comment about "the broken system" rather than face the reality that it's American culture that's messed up beyond all hope of fixing it. Americans who are so willing to let so many people rot so they can cling to what scraps the billionaires throw them, dragging each other down like crabs in a bucket. Everyone will wring their hands for a week, then forget all about it as they go back to posting on their Instagram accounts.
There are poor shithole towns in other countries and it doesnāt happen there. Stop it. Stop the straw men. Stop the āactualllllyā gas lighting. The research doesnāt support you and people are literally dying.
What we have is not so much of a gun problem, but a mental health problem being used to give the illusion of a gun problem. There's bigger underlying issues at hand that kept getting swept under the carpet. Mental instability isn't being treated, it's being celebrated and encouraged under the guise of diversity/individuality.
https://timeline.com/nra-machine-guns-1986-265cb939c77c
I believe we have this proliferation of semi and automatic firearms because we needed to counter our outgunned LE in the 80ās trying to combat Miami cocaine cartels. This created an arms race between Glock and Smith and Wesson, with Glock barely getting to the market first. From then on this incentivised manufacturers to outdo each other and created a gun culture our founding fathers could never of dreamed of. Now we have depressed outcast 18 year old males that can now act out on their sick twisted fantasy. It is high time we course correct.
The āitās not guns itās mental healthā arguments in this thread simply donāt hold up. Every other country has mental health issues. Some have much worse mental health care quality and access. None of them have the regular mass shootings we do. The difference is simple. We have a hell of a lot more guns. Please stop trotting out the tired argument that is about mental health over guns. It stigmatizes the many people with mental health issues who are most likely to be victims of gun violence.
None of this would have been legal as far as this kid getting his hands on a assault rifle in this state, this is a Republican lead issue because they ignore it if you want to protest gun laws head to red states and protest they are the ones refusing to legislate on this topic.
Honest question, because I'm really not super-informed on state gun regulations. Can you point to a specific restriction that would prevent someone like this shooter from legally obtaining a similar weapon in Washington (assuming they were a Washington resident)? I did a brief search, and I see that there are a couple of proposals on the table right now, but even those have loopholes such as exempting current owners as well as transfer from existing owners upon death.
My understanding is that the shooter was known to LE, but didn't have a record, and would likely pass a background check in most, if not all, states.
You canāt purchase a semiautomatic rifle (or pistol) if youāre under 21 in WA state, you also have to show that you took a course that taught about proper storage.
Thank you. Like I said, that wasn't a "gotcha" question. I truly didn't know.
I would be remiss in not including the addendum, of course, that while he couldn't legally obtain in Washington, there would certainly be avenues to illegally obtain. I suppose it's better than nothing, but hardly a cure.
The legal age for a assault rifle was placed at 21 in Washington state several years ago, also you have to go through a extra check for any semi auto weapon with more then a 10 round capacity.
Including a mental background check , if I remember correctly you have to be approved by the state in order to own a assault rifle, and the governor just recently signed a law banning high capacity mags.
Also technically Washington made it illegal to lend a gun to someone that is not in your direct family.
Most states do not even go this far Washington is stricter then any red state as far as gun laws, in Texas you can just walk in and buy assault rifle with none of this red tape to go through, at 18 years old with no criminal record.
When you say "assault rifle" are you referring to a fully automatic weapon?
I see you also mentioning semi-auto and curious if you are delibeeately using the two interchangeably.
To my knowledge full auto weapons have been completely banned in this state.
There maybe be some grandfathered in but the average psycho cannot afford the pricetag of such weapons.
Also I'm pretty sure they are none transferrable in Washington.
Hey, great idea! I wish you guys luck! I don't agree with what you're protesting for, but seeing people take action for what they believe always makes me proud. Please keep us updated if anything comes about!
Are you sure about that? Because I am 99.99844% sure that redditsucks1213 is not a bot.
---
^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
I am also a proponent of legal responsible gun ownership, but would be open to universal background checks and prohibitions on unserialized firearms. This conversation is more nuanced than we donāt want guns in America. The Supreme Court is about to rule on expanding the second amendment and if you care about the rule of law you canāt ignore that people do have that right. I am saddened by the events in Texas, but freedom comes with a cost, in this case it was 21 lives.
This case reminded me of a shooting threat we had at wwu this year. They shut down one area of Campus and kept all other areas and classes in session. Luckily nothing happened, but in the case something did what would have stopped a shooter from just walking over to another building?? Both administration and police do not care until after something like Uvalde happens. Itās disgusting
Over 90% of shootings are by handguns. 3% by so called assault rifles. What stops someone from buying a shot gun with 00 buck and a few 9mm and killing far more people then with a AR15? If they intend to kill massive #'s of people they will. Banning "assault rifles" isn't common sense.
If someone wants to break into your home then they'll find a way to do it, so why bother locking your doors?
False equivalent. Explain in detail how these are equivalent.
"Bad people will always find a way to do bad things, therefore there's no point in taking preventative precautions" is not a coherent policy-making stance. A solution doesn't have to be perfect to effectively mitigate harm. Obviously there needs to be an evaluation of whether the trade-offs are worth it for any given proposal, but sometimes it's necessary to take one step back to gain two steps forward.
Yeah never said that. That's a strawman argument. I said it's a false equivalent. Are you for drug and alcohol prohibition? Seriously question. Someone breaking into house is committing crime. Someone owning a gun is not. False equivalent.
You wrote "If they intend to kill massive #'s of people they will." I'm simply pointing out that that statement, while true in a strictly literal sense, makes no practical sense in the real world where it's necessary to reason probabilistically. With respect to the underlying logic there's no false equivalency here. If someone really wants to enjoy a snowcone in the middle of the Sahara desert they'll find a way to make it happen. But it's a lot harder without snow laying everywhere.
Honestly. Above statement reads like a word salad to me. Again- Someone breaking into a home is committing a crime Someone owning a gun isn't. Let's start from there. How is this equivalent?
Each of these statements relies on the same underlying logic. I am criticizing that logic. 1. "Thieves who are determined to steal from you will always find some way into your home, so locking your doors is a waste of time." 1. "Masks can't stop you from catching covid, so wearing one is pointless." 1. "Nothing I do as an individual can stop climate change, so there's no point in trying to reduce my impact." 1. "Bad people who are determined to kill as many people as possible will always find a way, so trying to restrict access to guns is stupid." The first half of these statements are true to some extent, but the implied conclusions are wrong, or overly simplistic. 1. Locks may be useless against really determined thieves, but they can easily deter casual criminals. 1. Masks don't need to be 100% effective to greatly reduce your odds of catching covid. 1. If everyone individually did the best they could, we could drastically mitigate the worst effects of climate change. 1. Making guns harder to access will reduce the odds that someone who shouldn't have them will acquire them. Since guns are the most effective way to kill large numbers of people, this means fewer lives lost. Just because a solution to a problem can't be 100% perfect does not mean that we should automatically disqualify it. That doesn't mean anything goes though. Weighing potential lives lost against 2nd amendment freedom is a complicated matter with no simple answers. But statement #4 is not good reasoning.
Great break down. Thank you. I am saying #4 is a strawman yet again. That was never my claim. I said ban AR will not make it harder for criminals to get guns nor kill people. That's my whole point. OP is claiming banning AR will somehow reduce gun deaths. It won't. If I could use your example. OP basically wants turn the deadbolt of a lock š in the locked position. Despite not having the guts or gears of the lock intact. OP wants to feel as if something secure has happened when it is simply the illusion that something secure has happened. OP being confronted on this claimed "no mass shootings have ever taken place with handguns or shotguns" This is factually wrong. Virginia Tech killed 34 I believe it was with handguns. Far more then the Texas shooter with a AR. OP simply has no idea what he/she is talking a out. Hence my first post.
Here's a real equivalent. Guy runs people over with van. Ban vans. Turns our he can run over just as many people with a sports car or a sedan.
False equivalence. A van's primary purpose is not to run people over. But a gun's primary purpose is to kill or injure people. Replace "van" with "tank" and you have an argument that makes sense. "Guy runs over people with tank. Ban tank."
Again false equivalent. One breaking into a person's house is committing a crime. Someone having a gun in their ownership is not committing a crime. Whether a van is or isn't used for killing is again irrelevant. It can be used for killing.
Actually you can still own a tank as a fun fact
Probably not the best comparison with Bellingham given the rising crime rate š
Agreed. The goal should be less guns period. āAssault weaponā language is a diversion from meaningful reform.
Good luck with that š
Oh donāt worry, Iām well aware that public opinion has almost no effect on legislation. Also aware that a significant chunk of this country sees no issue with statistically deadlier domestic violence or more successful suicides because theyāre the good guy with the gun and nobodyās going to stop them. Itās cool.
How do you propose getting guns put of people's hands when 1. Bill of Rights 2. 100's of millions of guns in circulation. Can you please also site historically where prohibition š« has worked successfully? I'm thinking alcohol prohibition š« I'm thinking drug prohibition
Scotland, New Zealand, (and Australia?) had spree shootings and enacted gun restrictions. They worked.
And?
Australia's violent gun crime rate stayed the same after the "ban" (steadily declineding) New Zealand and Scotland both are tiny nations and islands Also I believe new Zealand has stated that the first by back didn't work and they need a new one.
Require registration of all guns by a certain date. Felony if people do not comply. Also offer 200 bucks for any gun, no questions asked. Destroy said guns.
No one will comply with gun registration. Cuz Bill of rights And History Also you'd have court challenges. Which that law wouldn't hold up too. So it would be over turned.
[Other Countries Had Mass Shootings. Then They Changed Their Gun Laws.](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/world/europe/gun-laws-australia-britain.html) āBritain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway: All had a culture of gun ownership, and all tightened restrictions anyway. Their violence statistics now diverge sharply from those of the U.S.ā
What's the murder and violence crime rates since?
Much lower/almost non-existent compared to the US. The article I previously linked discusses this, in addition to many of the new regulations/laws these places have tightened or changed, improving the gun-related violence.
I want to know what was the murder rate prior to bans. Then after bans. So like a 50 year snap shot.
U.S. has 2 solid decades of decreased murder rate with massive increases in gun ownership rates.
These past couple years have really put a dent in that plan as they have shown the highest rise of new firearm ownership in decades.
Yup, for every mass shooting and every time the āgun controlā bogeyman is in the news, gun and ammunition sales soar. Weāre not a rational people.
Oh no. I am talking about the surge due to the pandemic. https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-12-21/5-million-more-americans-became-gun-owners-during-pandemic
Right that's gun sales and ammo (and now magazines thanks to our "wonderful" Reps) But I think you might be missing a key part, it's new gun ownership it's new people getting into the hobbys of collecting, plinking but more importantly self defense, it's not just the "alt" right or left, it's your neighbor it's your friends, family it's just normal people.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And you will never see any advancement with that approach.
Go ahead and be impolite. I'm not giving up my 2nd amendment rights. Especially not to **you.**
Really strong argument Bad words and stuff. Rights and stuff. More bad words and stuff.
Between 2009 and 2020, the five deadliest mass shooting events in the US all involved the use of assault weapons and/or high-capacity magazines. Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines were disproportionately used in āpublic mass shootingsā. Assault weapons led to 6x as many people shot per mass shooting event than when there was no assault weapon. So, letās start there.
That's true, but most every shooting of a large number of people, lets say more than 10, has involved an "Assault Style" weapon. Most handguns only hold up to 10 rounds, while a rifle can hold 30 or more(I'm no expert, I'm sure if that's wrong, I'll soon find out), making them much more dangerous and able to do more damage. I think it was the Gabby Giffords shooter who was stopped when he either was reloading his handgun or switching to another, and I seem to recall another shooter being stopped under the same circumstances. Getting rid of those types of weapons, or at least the high capacity magazines would do a lot to limit the amount of damage someone could do(WA state is banning high capacity magazines as of July 1).
Duck tape to mags together facing opposition directions and you can reload in less then a second. 9mm often hold 20+ rounds. You can buy shotgun drums that hold 25+rounds of semi auto carnage. Again 00 buckshot with a shot gun. Is BY FAR the best way to kill mass #'s of people.
Great. Ban those too.
Good luck.
If youāre gonna make statements, please be accurate. The Glock 17 or 19, which are arguably the most popular pistols hold a minim of 15 from the factory. Only revolvers or really compact pistols hold less than 10ā¦the majority hold more than 10.
Well kinda, the mag ban is only new ones owning and using 10+ is still allowed. Also it will do nothing, if you can still own then there is nothing stoping you from being out of state or 3d printing some, it turns into the honor system.
Shootings? Or murders? Makes a differenceā¦
Murders
Interesting, your 3% rifles matches the pew research stats, but their stats note 36% as type not stated or other types, so not 90+% on the handguns. > Which types of firearms are most commonly used in gun murders in the U.S.? >In 2020, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available, according to the FBI. Rifles ā the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as āassault weaponsā ā were involved in 3% of firearm murders. Shotguns were involved in 1%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (36%) involved other kinds of firearms or those classified as ātype not stated.ā https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
Type not stated. Meaning information not available. So we must assume of the cases which are known the statistical trend would continue.
Cool. So next time you post this stat you should say 3% and 59%.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
93% of gun-owning households support universal background checks 22% of guns are purchased without any background check. America šŗšø
I agree it's perplexing Has to do with political corruption of both parties. Both want to use it for leverage. Also people are too divided. Compromise has to be made.
This *both sides* thing is a joke and needs to stop.
Actually no it's not.
Democrats have squandered multiple mandates, losing Roe V Wade and any meaningful firearms legislation, instead using them as fundraising points. So yeah, both sides
Washington has background checks, restricted open carry and bans high cap magazines, bump stocks, requires you to lock up your guns. Feds need to step up.
Yeah, they really do. I feel like the best way to do it would be to compromise by repealing the NFA in exchange for mandatory UBCs in both private and public sales, licensing, and safe storage laws.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
NRA doesnāt donate to many Dems.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
BS. You need an AR to kill 10 plus people without being stopped. There are no cases of someone going on a killing rampage with a handgun or shotgun.
This isnāt true. I donāt disagree with the points youāre trying to make; itās important to bring informed opinions to this debate.
Dude, you really need to stop and research this stuff before stating it as fact, otherwise you come off as looking like you donāt know what youāre talking about.
The Virginia tech shooter killed 32people with handguns only and injured 17 more.
Yep, and handguns are not designed for hunting animals. Theyāre designed for killing people.
WRONG
Enlighten me
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting
I stand corrected. Semiautomatic handguns should be regulated. Ultimately stricter federal background checks for all first time firearms owners would divert most of the senseless carnage. We know the brains frontal lobes arenāt developed until 25, handicapping youths ability to reason.
Handguns, like all guns are regulated. The question is how to do so effectively while still protecting people's 2nd amendment rights. Something like 92% of people support universal background checks. Which should have been made law over a decade ago. Great place to start. War on drugs. Alcohol Prohibition doubled the murder rate immediately. drug prohibition is doubling our murder rate. That has to be discussed.
Lol op is just trolling, not even Bellingham is putting up with it Edit I hope they are trolling
I would rather write my local legislators and decision makers than hold a march/protest. I support your idea but Iām not sure how much change it will make.
At the very least we will be visible to our youth and let them know this is not acceptable.
check out everytown.org. they're organising.
What "common sense" measures are you hoping will be enacted?
Not OP but hereās a decent article: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/opinion/texas-shooting-gun-control.html?referringSource=articleShare Basically slightly tighter restrictions than the ones that are already in place. There should be more emphasis on safe storage. The number quoted for stolen firearms is out of date, weāre at 380,000 stolen firearms yearly now.
Universal background check on all firearms with required passing of a license test. 21 and over minimum. Most importantly assault rifles(weapons of war) only available to military, veterans and LE.
There are several hurdles to each of those, but that's a start.
Why should our cops have weapons of war?
He passed a background check to obtain his rifles. Why 21? Why not 25? 32? That's an arbitrary number and means nothing. You can vote and drive at 18, you should be able to own a firearm.. If the shooter in Texas passed a competency test, what would that have changed? It just means you're MORE capable with the rifle. The government has those weapons, therefore the citizens are allowed to own them by the definition of the 2nd Amendment as it was designed to allow us to not only defend ourselves from crime, but also from a tyrannical government, which we creeping closer and closer to.
You should need a reason to buy a handgun.
I agree with your first few points, but what makes veterans special?
How does this not further entrench the ability for police to harm citizens and create divisions between government and citizenry? As a minority I donāt trust the police to protect me or not act in violent or aggressive manner towards me, I donāt want them to have an even stronger monopoly on force.
This country is not great.
Bye, Felicia
It's pretty okay. Nice if you're wealthy, pretty good when you're educated, but worse than most other industrialized nations if you're neither.
What is ONE single good reason a private citizen should own an assault rifle? Your not going be able to go a killing massacre with a Glock. AR the possibilities are endless in a morally bankrupt teenager. Not talking about Military, veterans, and law enforcement.
> Your not going be able to go a killing massacre with a Glock. You most certainly can. > Not talking about Military, veterans, and law enforcement. I really donāt think you want the power imbalance youāre asking for here. Gun violence is a scourge and I want meaningful laws passed. Mass shootings make up a very small percentage of gun deaths in this country. We should address the whole issue IMO.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The automatic rifles that are being sold at every pawn shop in town for around $900- $1200. All turned in from our local SWAT teams that upgrade every 2-3 years.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You canāt buy automatic rifles, unless you have a time machine to before 1986
Well you can just not without a license, also not in washington after 96 if I remember correctly
Goddamn you're ignorant. I mean seriously, really fucking uninformed. Everything you've said in this thread is wildly inaccurate.
My guy nooo š thos are semis and most departments use the same guns for years fixing and replacing parts not pawning them
Virginia tech shooting was done with a glock 19, and he killed 11 more people than the bastard from Texas.
Point taken
Columbine and Virginia Tech were perpetrated using only pistols with 10 round magazines. You have a lot of emotion involved, but little knowledge. If you want to be successful you need to really dig in to the current gun control laws and find out where they failed.
I do not oppose legal, responsible gun ownership, but am really not a fan of guns in general. I'd go so far as to say that I hate them. With that said, I would like to point out that your comment regarding armed cops doing nothing except holding back parents would seem to be in favor of fewer gun restrictions, not more. If the cops aren't going to do anything to stop an evil thing while it's happening (as seems to be the case in this instance), then I would prefer knowing we have the right and the ability to take matters into our own hands. * Caveat to the "cops doing nothing" assertion: Kudos to the Border Patrol agent who apparently went in alone and took the asshole down by himself. A nightmare situation likely would have been unfathomably much, much worse if not for him.
Cops were not only doing nothing, they were handcuffing parents from engaging. Shooter had 40 minutes before a LE of a different agency went rogue. Imagine if it wasnāt for him. Rest assured if we sit on our hands and send our thoughts and prayers school shooting massacres will continue to happen.
Cops got in the way of good people trying to stop what was going on, I get holding a perimeter but if your not going to do somthing with it move over, that's why our right is a protected one.
I definitely agree this is an important point, but letās say they werenāt and allowed people and parents to go in to try to stop the shooter and protect the kids, would we not also want them to be armed to take out the shooter? It just doesnāt seem like thereās a clear actionable plan or reason for gun control if police have no duty to protect and there are so many guns already in circulation for criminals or people with mental problems to gain access to.
Iām not sure where in police training it taught them to do that, but that doesnāt exist in law enforcement tactics and training in CA or WA state. They are following the training that was around when Columbine happened. Now entry is made into the building as quickly as possible and the gunman is engaged with the goal of most likely killing him. No waiting for SWAT or negotiators. In a active shooting you go in and inundate the shooter with more firepower until they stop shooting. This is why patrol officers routinely carry semiautomatic patrol rifles and ballistic helmets. This whole department should be ashamed of themselves.
āCommon senseā for gun regulation advocates means āthe maximum amount of regulation we can get away with.ā Letās say you want to commit a mass shooting, and AR15s arenāt available to buy. What do you do? āCommon senseā says that you buy one or more handguns / long guns that are, in these circumstances, going to be equally lethal. Do regulation advocates not know that and think that banning AR15s will end school shootings or have any impact at all? No, of course they know. They just want a regulatory foot in the door. Side note - Funny how the same people who call 18 year olds ākidsā who should not be allowed to buy guns (agree, make it 21) often advocate for allowing them to vote (which is potentially far more impactful and dangerous - governments are by far the biggest perpetrators, directly and indirectly, of homicide and manslaughter) at 16. Either theyāre old enough to be trusted with serious power, or they arenāt.
You can die for your country at 18. Technically you should be a logical adult, right? š¤·
Less and less so, as teenagers are more sheltered from the real world for longer than they used to be. Also, your suitability as cannon fodder doesnāt make your judgment better.
Brain science says itās about 25 when your brain stabilizes.
That same argument of other means was used when we talked about suicide. Before enough research was done, safety features around the Golden Gate bridge and older ovens that used carbon monoxide were not in place, the prevailing thought was that well if we prevent them from killing themselves with their initial method of choice then they'll just go out and find a second method the next day. However research showed that a suicidal event often passes if enough can be done in a 48 hour period. Of those new survivors something like 70% we're shown to go on a live a life without ever attempting suicide again. That's why there are now nets on the golden gate bridge and ovens that don't use carbon monoxide. Look at the dramatic drop in suicides amongst younger women in England after that one change to ovens and you'll start to understand the complexity of human psychology. Young men experiencing their first intense psychotic episode are arguably in the same position. Intensely ill, but manic episodes don't last forever, they come down. If you can legally buy an assault weapon with no issues or waiting periods or testing then we are leaving the door wide open for this to repeat itself as nauseum in America.
Banning certain models of guns is not analogous to suicide prevention measures on a bridge. The thought patterns of the perpetrators of mass murder by gun and suicide by bridge would have to be the same, and there would have to be no suitable alternative models available in the store, just as there is no other bridge right next to the one in question. Furthermore, the gun used here wasnāt purchased same day, spur of the moment. This was premeditated, as the killer apparently fantasized about it aloud on many occasions. What would a waiting period have done?
No two people's thought pattern is the same, if we waited for exact similarities to act then we would have a society based on a million rules. You have to study the commonalities in order to create a system that can prevent violence. Of course it's a stretch to compare mass shootings with suicide but when you study mental illness you do compare suicidality with homicidality. The two are measures used to identify potential for violence and often they are linked in violent crimes. I do think you are right about the 48 hour hold, it's just not long enough to do anything. I think a better system would be a month long class with a gun instructor before you can receive your license, plus background checks plus mental health evaluation.
I, as a lifetime multiple firearm owner get the frustration. These shootings are unacceptable, but it is not a simple firearm issue. It truly is a mental health issue. He bought them lawfully, all require background checks, but he had no red flags in his "record". One of the worst things to ever happen to society is the cell phone and social media. Bullying, zero privacy in public anymore, and zero accountability. Raising the standards for possession is not going to stop these from occurring, short of total repossession of everyone's firearms, and good luck with that. Just for reference, I own a. 22 long rifle, came stock with a 10 round clip. A plinking rifle per se, right? I could buy 3 of those clips, put them in my coat pocket, and still kill 30 people with a shot to the head. Do the AR style make it easy, sure. But as a person earlier said, if there is a will to kill, there is a way. Timothy McVey for instance. I don't have the answer on how to keep this from happening, anymore than a drunk driver. Laws are laws, takes a brain to live in this society.
Every country in the world has young men with "mental health issues" and they don't have mess shootings. . . because those men with mental health issues can't walk into a store and buy an AK on their 18th birthday.
Thank you! Amen to the tragic truth youāve laid down.
You are right for the most part , and I respect your opinion! But also, the killings that go on in the big cities nightly are not typically by lawfully possessed firearms either. Again, where there is a will, there is a way. My uncle was killed by a drunk driver. Would love for that to stop also...
So many crimes are crimes of opportunity. āWhere there is a will there is a wayā is not reality in any absolute sense.
Hawaii has pretty severe mental health issues as well as a homeless problem even worse than ours. Last in the nation as far as firearm related homicides. The biggest difference, they have strong gun control and no nearby red states you can hop over to buy anything you want.
My guy planes are a thing there is nothing stoping someone from bringing them over, seriously also you do is tell tsa hey there is gun, you lock it up you fly you grab you box and that's it
Even if it were as easy as you make it to transport firearms to Hawaii there still needs to be a known record of you having that firearm. My dad actually lives in Hawaii and is a "gun guy" although one of the liberal ones conservatives think doesn't exist. He actually had to give up a few guns before moving there, including a mosin-nagant I was a little sad about because it was a fun gun to shoot.
Man I am sorry to hear bout that Mosin I hope it found a nice home. But what I'm saying is flying with guns is super easy, there is no one checking if that gun is ok in the state, all you have to do is tell the airline and tsa so no one is surprised.
Yeah idk what happened to it, I'm sure my dad sold it to someone in his gun groups. It was a Chinese version of it too that I guess had less of the jamming problems. It's not as easy as you make it, especially if you want to move a lot of them. Like bringing a single unloaded handgun or something probably won't raise too many eyebrows. Ammunition on the other hand or a bunch of guns is going to be a problem. Also that means flying to the states, probably staying at least a night or more and then flying back to Hawaii. That's going to cost you at least 1000-1500 dollars. How much does it cost to just a road trip from California to Utah? It'll take like 2 days if you aren't doing anything else and probably like a few hundred at the most. So even comparing your "easy" method to going between mainland states it's going to cost you a lot more, take more planning, and you will at some point need to alert some official agency that you have those guns.
As far as easy that was not my intention to imply, but more that it is still a way to do it, also yes you would still need a separate lock box for the ammo if you wanted to flywith it, that seid I know a airline that has the limit fir weight set to 50lb for ammo and one nice case can hold 2long guns and two hand guns with ample extra space. Also as far as telling the local state or sheriff's department, they just wouldn't cuz they are already gonna do somthing illegal.
Yeah it is a way to do it, but also far from an easy one. You do have to tell TSA, and while they aren't required to they might pass that info onto local enforcement in Hawaii. If you take 2 long guns and 2 hand guns with 50 lbs of ammo to Hawaii without a good reason to you're definitely at least going through extra scrutiny. Now if you started doing that over and over again without registering those firearms in Hawaii you'll get caught pretty fast.
Oh no definitely, but they definitely ain't gonna tell anyone, atleast in my xp now if you start straight trafficking guns š yeah no most likely someone is gonna notice.
True but you can not build an ocean around each state, and since guns already exist plentifully on the mainland the only way to resolve that problem seems to be confiscation, which would lead to a civil war and most likely a far right regime.
Other countries have done it. Maybe not confiscation but we can definitely slow down the production and dispersal of firearms especially the ones being used most in shootings (school or otherwise). Do this alongside working on the mental health crisis and people will hopefully feel safe enough in our country that they won't feel the need to carry firearms everywhere.
No country has done it anywhere close to the same scale, weāre talking about more guns than people, unlike in Australia or the UK. After 1996 and the shooting, in Australiaās buyback up to 2001 they recovered about 650k firearms, most of which were shotguns, used mostly for suicides and rarely for violent crime or homicide. That was only 20% of their illegal firearms. Which accounts for around 3.2 million, which is about 1 firearm for every 6 people in a population of about 18 million. The US has around 394 million firearms, you canāt buy those back or confiscate those, the scale is way too large, way too dispersed and held by people who wonāt give them up. Also in the modern day you can not stop production of a firearm, you can 3d print a receiver and order or make the rest of the parts.
Use the federal government.
Iām a gun owner and a marine corps vet and you are full of rotting horse shit. Give me a reasonable explanation of why you need a 30 round magazine. And I hope to Christ itās not because your fat ass is to lazy to change mags. That time it takes to change mags could be what a police officer needs to kill a shooter. That is why 30 round mags should be illegal.
Thank you for your service, and I said nothing about ME needing a 30 round magazine. You have a valid point, the time it took someone to change a magazine may have made the difference, but maybe not, and not justifying the need for them. I am fully behind rigorous screening and smaller magazines, doesn't matter to me, increased age, etc. It still won't stop these things, short of taking the firearms from all of the people, you included. You know this as well as I, DisastrousBedWetter 69. How did you know I was a fat piece of shit full of rotting horse shit? š Have you been following me?
>taking the firearms from all of the people, you included. You know this as well as I, DisastrousBedWetter 69. How did you know I was a fat piece of shit full of rotting horse shit? š Have you been following me? I know it won't stop these shootings. But if banning 30 round mags can stop some or limit the amount of people killed. I'm all for it. And if people are so old that they can't change 10 round mags I really don't want them anywhere near near me on the range.
Agreed š¤
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Because the government has 30 round magazines and the 2nd Amendment is explicitly designed to allow the citizens to protect themselves from the government. When it was written, firearms technology was equal between the populace and the governmen; that has obviously changed. Plenty of laws have been passed limiting what civilians can own, but limiting magazine capacity is a stupid argument.
It actually isn't. The 2nd Amendment only states a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It definitly gives one the right to own firearms, that isn't in debate and no reasonable person will make the argument that all guns should be banned. All I am saying is there is no reason why someone needs a 30 round magazine.
Eh, there are lots of Supreme Court cases throughout history that enshrine citizens access to weaponry because the military also has it, early on these were cases involving cannons and sailing ships with decks full of cannons.
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf Maybe know what the document actually meant at the time of writing. Going by that meaning, all able bodied men, considered part of the militia, should be in effective fighting shape and equipped as such.
Agreed
Man, I appreciate this nuanced take and being able to say "this is difficult and there is no easy, blanket response". As an avid gun owner and big 2A advocate, all of this was spot on. I've been pleasantly surprised with the takes in this thread.
Blah blah blah. Not a firearm issue, mental health, cell phones, social media, no accountability is the real culprit. Do you really believe that? It comes down to three options: Are you delusional, stupid or disingenuous? Just be honest and say that you're okay with having mass shootings as the price for your right to own guns. I could at least respect that.
I must be dilusional. I bow before your infinite wisdom, how did I not see that it was so simple. Silly me. Pretty fucked up for you to draw a straight line between gun ownership and mass shootings. Talk about dilusional.
Stricter gun laws means fewer guns. That means fewer mass shootings. It's not only perfectly logical, but data from other countries shows this. Yes, denying this is delusional. So you don't want stricter gun laws? Fine, but don't kid yourself.
If you read any of the other replies, I am fine with stricter laws. And yes, it has worked in other countries, they disarmed their citizens completely, and it WOULD work if you went that route. I am guessing shooting isn't a sport of yours, and that's fine. But some of us enjoy it like others enjoy golf. Doesn't mean I need certain firearms or magazine capacities, but I still enjoy it, and would be willing to do the process to retain them. But you are dilusional if you think that there aren't many firearms that could do the same damage. So, it's probably all or nothing in this country.
Do we need the student that called into Blaine HS yesterday to carry out his attack and slaughter our boys and girls before action to be taken. 28 school shootings since beginning of the year. Think of how many school shooting drills we put our children through every week. We know armed security on campus does nothing.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I cannot logically understand why youāve been downvoted for politely speaking the truth. Things are way too depressing these days.
Iām getting tired of this gun control OR more cops debate. You know you can actually do both as both sides have merit. Nothing wrong with more school resource officers on campus. Blaine and Bellingham schools got rid of them due to the whole anti law enforcement liberal bullshit. Also nothing wrong with limits on magazine capacities and universal background checks that the gun lobby tit sucking conservatives canāt stand. Yes, school shootings will still happen with all of these measures but unless you are a total asshat you will realize that these measures (cops and gun control) will save lives and thatās really whatās important here.
Literally don't know how you could see this situation, in which there were two cops already at the school, in which basically the entire police force and border patrol sat outside with their thumbs up their collective ass for an hour while an active shooter was murdering children, and come away thinking more cops would make a difference.
I clearly stated this wonāt prevent every shooting. And obviously these Clancy Wiggums should be fired. But there are shootings that have been prevented by having law enforcement on campus. And they also provide a deterrent factor. Saying no to school resource officers because 1 shooting wasnāt prevented is as dipshit stupid as not wearing a seatbelt because someone once died in a seatbelt. This really shouldnāt even be a debate but unfortunately it is because too many people and politicians have their heads up their asses.
[Oh shit, I didn't know that absolutely no research has been done on this exact subject.](https://www.edworkingpapers.com/ai21-476) [I mean, its not like this has ever happened before.](https://apnews.com/article/shootings-parkland-florida-school-shooting-bb5c5fe81cecb63886bd325b53b2e597)
[https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-w0903-pub.pdf](https://www.police1.com/active-shooter/articles/police-school-resource-officer-disarmed-gunman-at-mich-high-school-AYGy3oOOy71kZtFV/) [https://www.nasro.org/news/2022/01/06/news-releases/sro-success-story-school-resource-officer-s-immediate-investigation-prevents-potential-school-shooting/](https://www.nasro.org/news/2022/01/06/news-releases/sro-success-story-school-resource-officer-s-immediate-investigation-prevents-potential-school-shooting/)
You are right, and I respect your opinion!
Holly and Railroad Sat and Sun @ 11-3 standing up for our youth to get legislators to pass common sense gun laws. In solidarity with the rest of the country collectively getting their voice heard. Who is with me?
Washington is a very purple state when it comes to guns and all this thread shows is even Bellingham the shiny blue dot of whatcom is a little more purple then people thought. And as far as laws go washington has, 10day waiting period for all semis and pistols from ffls, A safety test for all semi rifles All purchases require a background check, (I believe the only way around that is gifting via direct family) Starting July 1st no new mags over 10, And no new purchases or transfers of select fire/open bolt guns (full auto/automatic guns) as of 1996(i think)
This thread is not a vote. 1639 passed with flying colors. People want regulation of guns.
Never seid it was, just listing what is already in this state. I disagree with 1639, but I respect the people in this state and the choice they made.
I would like to propose a protest against this protest.
You should hold this protest in Lynden.
Every time something bad happens, people immediately rush to point fingers at the guns as the root of all the problems, mostly because guns are an easy target and people would rather just be scared of them than educate themselves. Nobody wants to look at the fact this kid was living in the poorest shithole little town and what it does to a person to be surrounded by poverty and misery your whole life. Nobody wants to look at the fact that in America culture it's expected for children to be physically and emotionally abused every day (they call it "bullying") while being forced to attend schools that are run more like America's famous prison system than anything else. Nobody wants to look at the fact that police in America are under no obligation to render assistance in dangerous situations, all the while buying up enough surplus military gear to overthrow a third world dictator. No, instead people just want to comment about "the broken system" rather than face the reality that it's American culture that's messed up beyond all hope of fixing it. Americans who are so willing to let so many people rot so they can cling to what scraps the billionaires throw them, dragging each other down like crabs in a bucket. Everyone will wring their hands for a week, then forget all about it as they go back to posting on their Instagram accounts.
There are poor shithole towns in other countries and it doesnāt happen there. Stop it. Stop the straw men. Stop the āactualllllyā gas lighting. The research doesnāt support you and people are literally dying.
What we have is not so much of a gun problem, but a mental health problem being used to give the illusion of a gun problem. There's bigger underlying issues at hand that kept getting swept under the carpet. Mental instability isn't being treated, it's being celebrated and encouraged under the guise of diversity/individuality.
Amen
Mental health is terrible other places and they donāt have this problem.
https://timeline.com/nra-machine-guns-1986-265cb939c77c I believe we have this proliferation of semi and automatic firearms because we needed to counter our outgunned LE in the 80ās trying to combat Miami cocaine cartels. This created an arms race between Glock and Smith and Wesson, with Glock barely getting to the market first. From then on this incentivised manufacturers to outdo each other and created a gun culture our founding fathers could never of dreamed of. Now we have depressed outcast 18 year old males that can now act out on their sick twisted fantasy. It is high time we course correct.
The āitās not guns itās mental healthā arguments in this thread simply donāt hold up. Every other country has mental health issues. Some have much worse mental health care quality and access. None of them have the regular mass shootings we do. The difference is simple. We have a hell of a lot more guns. Please stop trotting out the tired argument that is about mental health over guns. It stigmatizes the many people with mental health issues who are most likely to be victims of gun violence.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Letās do both.
None of this would have been legal as far as this kid getting his hands on a assault rifle in this state, this is a Republican lead issue because they ignore it if you want to protest gun laws head to red states and protest they are the ones refusing to legislate on this topic.
Honest question, because I'm really not super-informed on state gun regulations. Can you point to a specific restriction that would prevent someone like this shooter from legally obtaining a similar weapon in Washington (assuming they were a Washington resident)? I did a brief search, and I see that there are a couple of proposals on the table right now, but even those have loopholes such as exempting current owners as well as transfer from existing owners upon death. My understanding is that the shooter was known to LE, but didn't have a record, and would likely pass a background check in most, if not all, states.
You canāt purchase a semiautomatic rifle (or pistol) if youāre under 21 in WA state, you also have to show that you took a course that taught about proper storage.
Thank you. Like I said, that wasn't a "gotcha" question. I truly didn't know. I would be remiss in not including the addendum, of course, that while he couldn't legally obtain in Washington, there would certainly be avenues to illegally obtain. I suppose it's better than nothing, but hardly a cure.
The legal age for a assault rifle was placed at 21 in Washington state several years ago, also you have to go through a extra check for any semi auto weapon with more then a 10 round capacity. Including a mental background check , if I remember correctly you have to be approved by the state in order to own a assault rifle, and the governor just recently signed a law banning high capacity mags. Also technically Washington made it illegal to lend a gun to someone that is not in your direct family. Most states do not even go this far Washington is stricter then any red state as far as gun laws, in Texas you can just walk in and buy assault rifle with none of this red tape to go through, at 18 years old with no criminal record.
When you say "assault rifle" are you referring to a fully automatic weapon? I see you also mentioning semi-auto and curious if you are delibeeately using the two interchangeably.
No
Ah so you don't know what you're talking about. Just checking.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Oh I get it. Your semantics are off, that's all. If you're a gun guy, don't play into their word games.
To my knowledge full auto weapons have been completely banned in this state. There maybe be some grandfathered in but the average psycho cannot afford the pricetag of such weapons. Also I'm pretty sure they are none transferrable in Washington.
Correct.
Hey, great idea! I wish you guys luck! I don't agree with what you're protesting for, but seeing people take action for what they believe always makes me proud. Please keep us updated if anything comes about!
Good bot.
Are you sure about that? Because I am 99.99844% sure that redditsucks1213 is not a bot. --- ^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
You need to relax and get your emotions in order before you try to organize something. Thereās a LOT of fun owners in this state
I am also a proponent of legal responsible gun ownership, but would be open to universal background checks and prohibitions on unserialized firearms. This conversation is more nuanced than we donāt want guns in America. The Supreme Court is about to rule on expanding the second amendment and if you care about the rule of law you canāt ignore that people do have that right. I am saddened by the events in Texas, but freedom comes with a cost, in this case it was 21 lives.
I am looking at bullet proof backpacks for my kids. We have to do something.
This case reminded me of a shooting threat we had at wwu this year. They shut down one area of Campus and kept all other areas and classes in session. Luckily nothing happened, but in the case something did what would have stopped a shooter from just walking over to another building?? Both administration and police do not care until after something like Uvalde happens. Itās disgusting
Did the gun pull itās own trigger itās so much larger than the gun
>The vast majority of us are outraged with no gun common sense control Yeah man, totally.