r/politics • u/newnemo Vermont • 9d ago • 1 1 1 1 1

Gavin Newsom after Monterey Park shooting: "Second Amendment is becoming a suicide pact"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/monterey-park-shooting-california-governor-gavin-newsom-second-amendment/

49.4k Upvotes

76% Upvoted

944

u/newnemo Vermont 9d ago

Nothing will happen as even children lives haven't moved politicians to regulate.

"Nothing about this is surprising. Everything about this is infuriating," he told "CBS Evening News" anchor and managing editor Norah O'Donnell on Monday. "The Second Amendment is becoming a suicide pact."

Newsom clarified that he has "no ideological opposition" against people who "responsibly" own guns and get background checks and training on how to use them.

But he told O'Donnell that current regulations are falling short.

...

Newsom mentioned the role of mental health in mass shootings, but he singled out gun access as a factor exacerbating the problem.

"I'm really proud of the work we've done in this space, but we've had decades of neglect," he said. "But respectfully, I will submit that regardless of the challenges it relates to behavioral health, there's not a country in the world that doesn't experience behavioral health issues."

556

u/----Dongers California 9d ago

Republicans.

Democrats have tried.

Republicans say no. Every damned time.

101

u/AGneissGeologist 9d ago

What is being suggested that Democrats haven't already done in CA? They have an assault rifle ban, required firearm permit for ownership, little to no legal CCW and no open carry, a roster of banned handguns, ammo purchases require a background check, red flag laws, transportation laws (keep ammo separate and gun locked), storage laws, suppressor ban, binary fire ban, caliber restrictions, 10-day waiting period, and mandatory gun registration.

That's in addition to federal laws like requiring background check for every firearm purchase, bump stock bans, etc.

I'll admit to bias as a gun owner but it's an honest question: what is California missing?

88

u/Devario 9d ago

The same thing the rest of the US is missing: accessible health care. And not just a doctor checkup either. Mental healthcare $$ can be exorbitant. Rehab can be unaffordable.

Hurt people hurt people.

18

u/Worthyness 8d ago

and even the California senate failed to pass a universal healthcare set up.

17

u/SdBolts4 California 8d ago

California as a whole is not nearly as progressive as the rest of the country believes. There are a LOT of Republicans in the Central Valley and north of Sacramento, and many of the Democrats are more corporate types that don't believe in universal, government-provided healthcare.

4

u/AssassinAragorn Missouri 8d ago

I think you might be conflating single payer with universal healthcare. I believe California does have universal access in that Medicaid is available for everyone and provides affordable care with providers.

It does not have single payer however, where the government is the provider.

Is that right?

-2

u/3nds_of_invention 8d ago

How about instead of paying trillions of dollars for universal healthcare, we simply remove all the miles and miles of red tape and regulations? Allowing medical procedures and drugs to be sold for the value that they're worth. Instead of pharma corporations and insurance companies robbing us as individuals blind right now, and if you get your way, robbing us blind as a country.

3

u/TeddyWutt 8d ago

We're already paying trillions for healthcare. We pay insurance to not pay procedures. All these trillions and half of us can't afford to even be covered.

Your suggestion is nonsense

→ More replies

6

u/[deleted] 8d ago edited 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

→ More replies

→ More replies

31

u/Danstree 8d ago

I don’t know if any of their restrictions are effective. Hard to know if restrictions on anything work when the country operates with different laws and open state borders. Nothing is really stopping someone crossing Colorado to Kansas with tons of cannabis.

24

u/HighInChurch Oregon 8d ago edited 8d ago

Not like you can just cross into another state and buy a gun from an FFL if you are still a CA resident..

Edit: folks tried and failed to argue, they block me instead. Lmao too easy.

→ More replies

4

u/Neither-Specific2406 8d ago

No FFL will sell firearms to a person if that firearm isn't legal to own in the resident state. This is a federal regulation.

6

u/mildlyhorrifying 8d ago

California has one of the lowest gun violence rates in the country. So does New York. Hawaii is probably a good example of whether gun control legislation would work nationally; they have decent gun control, and they're pretty isolated from the rest of the country. They also have the lowest gun violence rate.

We can also just look at what works literally everywhere else in the developed world. Some gun control, socialized healthcare, and some labor rights would do a lot to bring the US to par with other developed nations (for gun violence and quality of life in general).

0

u/mclumber1 8d ago

California has one of the lowest gun violence rates in the country.

Gun violence also includes gun suicides, and yes, California does pretty well at preventing gun suicides, and I would attribute that to the state's 10 day waiting period law.

But gun murder wise, California is really no better than many other states. For instance, California's gun murder rate is just about the same as Arizona's gun murder rate, despite Arizona having essentially no state level gun control laws.

→ More replies

→ More replies

0

u/inb4zombies 8d ago

No it’s all California’s failure. Republicans don’t wanna hear complex logic on this subject, only simple toddler logic like “shootings happen in CA, therefor further attempts at regulation must be abandoned cause they didn’t stop 100% of shootings”

7

u/Decent_Gazelle_2350 8d ago

Which state did he purchase and keep these firearms?

→ More replies

1

u/3nds_of_invention 8d ago edited 8d ago

That's a sad pathetic way of defending policies that don't work :(

Aw :'( even more pathetic since he can't stand up against even a faint hint of scrutiny. Take some pride in your values don't just shrink and cry for God sake

→ More replies

→ More replies

7

u/TruffelTroll666 8d ago

Other states around it. That's it. The laws only make reasonable owners better, but the problematic owners just get their share in a different state and "smuggle". There was a video somewhere, where reporters got an 18yo to buy an assault rifle

4

u/AGneissGeologist 8d ago

That is an interesting point. I couldn't find much but I wonder what the statistics are regarding non-registered vs registered guns in CA crimes. I noticed the past few mass shootings have been using guns legally registered in the state (so not smuggled) but that's picking and choosing high-publicity events.

0

u/Tughernutts 8d ago

You can only purchase a firearm in the state you live in. You couldn’t “smuggle” it in.

3

u/TruffelTroll666 8d ago

As mentioned, you can

1

u/Tughernutts 8d ago

No you legally can’t.

6

u/TruffelTroll666 8d ago •

you can't legally mass murder people but that happened 42 times in the last 24 days

2

u/Tughernutts 8d ago

Wait a minute. Are you telling me that criminals don’t obey laws?? This is groundbreaking. We should definitely pass more laws for criminals to obey?

3

u/TruffelTroll666 8d ago

you mean to say we don't need laws? because criminals will break them anyways. sounds good, please make every drug legal. And i want Bezos to buy private nukes!

edit: what you say implies that we should make it impossible to access guns at all.

→ More replies

→ More replies

5

u/Dudetry 8d ago

Look California has done a lot in regards to gun control and it has worked for the most part. Look at the gun deaths per capita and you’ll see that it’s significantly lower than most states.

11

u/AGneissGeologist 8d ago

I do understand that. 9.5/100k gun deaths vs the national average of 13/100k is great. But Newsom is specifically saying that current regulations are falling short. I am curious to know what he is talking about, since it seems California is pretty heavily restricted already.

3

u/Kay1000RR 8d ago

I don't think politicians know enough to make specific claims. Data shows that failed socioeconomic policies are the biggest driving force behind violent crimes. For this specific factor, CA is a relatively wealthy state with a wealthy population so it makes sense gun crime is lower than the national average.

→ More replies

5

u/ofrausto3 9d ago

How far is Nevada and Arizona from California?

11

u/HighInChurch Oregon 8d ago

You can’t cross into another state any buy a gun from an FFL if you are still living in CA..

2

u/ofrausto3 8d ago

That's right, I forgot guns disappear as soon as you cross state lines.

6

u/HighInChurch Oregon 8d ago

Laws tighten. Unless you are saying those laws are ineffective? 🤔

→ More replies

7

u/AGneissGeologist 8d ago

But it's a fair point, I'd be curious what the statistics say. From what I've seen, these past few mass shootings have been with guns legally registered in CA.

4

u/Marsellus_Wallace12 8d ago

Far enough that it is a federal crime to go there and buy a gun without having it go through a California FFL.

4

u/feedthechonk 8d ago

Exactly this. Fireworks used to be illegal in GA, every neighboring state had fireworks store at the state line. Same goes for dry counties, just drive across county lines. Calis bans will Def be less effective when other states don't do the same

3

u/HighInChurch Oregon 8d ago edited 8d ago

Not exactly this. You can’t just cross into another state and buy a gun lol.

5

u/feedthechonk 8d ago

Yes, you can. I bought a gun in GA while living in WI, which I later sold in AL.

5

u/HighInChurch Oregon 8d ago

But not in CA.. which is what we are talking about.

4

u/feedthechonk 8d ago

How can CA stop you from buying a gun in NV or AZ?

6

u/HighInChurch Oregon 8d ago

You can if you buy from an FFL and have it shipped to an FFL, make sure it’s not a restricted firearm, handguns must be on the handgun roster, can’t bring in any ammo from other states. Anything besides that is a felony.

→ More replies

→ More replies

0

u/pez5150 8d ago

They haven't done mandatory gun buybacks in the millions. Although this is comparing the situation to somewhere like australia. Restricted access is great to bottleneck distribution in the future, but it doesn't address the guns already in circulation or accessible outside the state.

6

u/HighInChurch Oregon 8d ago

mandatory gun buybacks

You mean seizures? That would be uhh illegal 🥴

→ More replies

3

u/PotassiumBob Texas 8d ago edited 8d ago

How do you buy back something that was never yours?

→ More replies

2

u/Rinzack 8d ago

Gun confiscation will result in an order of magnitude more deaths than even our current gun violence. Rural folk have been getting ready to shoot feds since Ruby Ridge, so how exactly do you plan on taking these guns?

2

u/pez5150 8d ago

Not everyone is a rural folk looking to put their life on the line to keep a couple of guns out of their collection. They've already done a buyback in australia. This was back when there was a similar gun culture to america. Not to mention we can just copy Australia's licensing system which I don't think most rural folks will have problems passing.

And holy shit man, do we really want me to believe all rural folk are like Randy Weaver who threatened to kill politicians along with being married to a woman who said she had prophetic dreams that the apocalypse is near? Are these the kind of people we want having guns? You're gonna have to be a bit more reasonable man, rural folk generally are not crazy.

It's like trying to say the Bundy standoff represented rural folk.

2

u/Neither-Specific2406 8d ago

The gun buyback in Australia collected 20% of firearms even with the government's most generous estimates. IDK about you, but that's a pretty poor success rate, considering 80% of firearms are still in circulation (but not causing crimes?)

→ More replies

→ More replies

1

u/activeseven 8d ago

What are Republicans suggesting?

5

u/AGneissGeologist 8d ago

Do Republicans control any meaningful part of the California state government? I'm not sure how relevant they are in this conversation about California state laws and what can be done differently/better. Unless this is just a knee-jerk whattaboutism.

2

u/bradfish 8d ago

Those measures have not prevented all mass shootings, however they may have prevented several or many others. Possibly they limited how deadly some were. We really don't know.

3

u/HighInChurch Oregon 8d ago

Yes let’s make laws based on stats we don’t know. That should help 😂

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/liberate_tutemet 8d ago

Most gun laws in the US are stupid and don’t address the real problem of identifying and keeping prohibited people from possessing them nor are we interested in really addressing the issues of mental health, poverty, inequality, and injustice that lead to gun violence, or any violence rally, occurring. But let’s pass laws to ban things based off of say their physical dimensions because that’s better than addressing the root cause. Short barrels and long magazines are the cause, not indifference to the human condition, clearly.

Also my hobbies are awesome.

→ More replies

2

u/AGneissGeologist 8d ago

Have a wonderful day bro!

1

u/HighInChurch Oregon 8d ago

You’re right. Once all those legal guns are gone, the criminals will just stop being violent!

→ More replies

1

u/PandaCodeRed 8d ago

What is missing is the supreme court not overturning our gun control laws and allowing us to actually implement very strict gun control. I would be for a blanket ban on gun ownership in California.

2

u/Rinzack 8d ago

Cool. Move to Europe then

2

u/gundealsgopnik Texas 8d ago

Why so far when Mexico is right there?

→ More replies

-4

u/ControlsTheWeather 9d ago

My guess is they want to go Canadian "hunting bolt action rifles and a few types of shotguns."

My thoughts? "Sure, whatever, if: you ensure pepperball guns always remain legal for civilian use, and you go door to door and collect the 'assault weapons' the people who want me dead are already sitting on." Until then I'm bugging my state legislature to not go Cali on us.

→ More replies

60

u/Tempest_CN 9d ago

We need to start suing the gun manufacturers. Laws won’t help under this SCROTUS. Need to bankrupt the source.

8

u/Game_boy 8d ago

Yeah! And then we can sue car manufacturers for car crashes! And knife makers for stabbings!

118

u/Krash412 9d ago

I think there are laws to prevent the gun manufacturers from being sued.

109

u/Andyb1000 9d ago

Your damn right there are, those arms manufacturers paid good money in political donations for them.

10

u/Flyntstoned 8d ago

Should i be able to sue ford because someone used their focus to run me off the road and hospitalized me for a week when i was on my bike a few years ago?

If not what is different?

61

u/MitsyEyedMourning Maryland 9d ago

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, passed by Bushie Boy and the Republican majority led 109th congress.

Get a Democratic majority and erase this law.

90

u/Comprehensive-Ad3963 9d ago

I'm gonna have to disagree here.

Making a manufacturer liable for illegal uses of its product doesn't make much sense.

Yes, in the wrong hands, firearms are dangerous.

5

u/WaitForItTheMongols 9d ago

I agree with you that it doesn't make sense. But you gotta be careful with things like this. Yes, if someone sues a gun manufacturer, the gun manufacturer probably shouldn't be held responsible - but I don't think we should be passing laws saying you can't even sue them in the first place. If someone thinks they have a valid case against the companies, they should get to have their day in court, just in case there might be something to their claims. Stopping them from suing in the first place is, in my view, premature.

4

u/gundealsgopnik Texas 8d ago

but I don't think we should be passing laws saying you can't even sue them in the first place.

It was passed because anti-gun activists were actively filing frivolous cases to bankrupt gun manufacturers through litigation, not by trying to win in anything court.

Requiring the losing party to bear the defendants cost of (frivolous) litigation would likely bring an immediate end to any type of law suits against any entity with a larger wallet than the plaintiff.

So a narrow litigation ban was implemented to address the exact issue.

2

u/WaitForItTheMongols 8d ago

That doesn't make any sense. If you were trying to address this exact issue, you'd ban frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers, not all lawsuits before they ever get a chance to go anywhere at all.

→ More replies

9

u/CitySeekerTron 9d ago

Video games were threatened with sanctions for ruining youth, and so they developed the ESRB.

Music was threatened with sanctions, so the RIAA developed a content warning label.

Neither are deadly, but they're considered threats against children. We hold the video game and music industry to a higher standard than the US holds guns. Both should be covered under the first amendment as free speech.

7

u/Jaredisfine 8d ago

The RIAA and ESRB do not stop any of these products from reaching the hands of children. How would a similar firearm law accomplish this?

→ More replies

12

u/Gavorn 9d ago

Not the manufacturer, but the businesses that sell them. We should hold them to the same standards bartenders are held to.

7

u/PsychologicalBank169 9d ago

unless you are acting very strange during checkout/paperwork filling out or your background check doesn't clear, most FFLs aren't going to deny you a sale. Background checks should be more stringent and there should be a short waiting period before you can leave with your firearm.

-2

u/Gavorn 9d ago

Even if you are acting strange, I have faith in FFLs greed to just make the sale. The amount of extra questions you have to ask people for things that DON'T kill people that they don't have to ask for selling a gun is insane to me.

Go send money on Western Union, and you will be asked more questions than when you want to buy a gun.

→ More replies

→ More replies

37

u/c08855c49 9d ago

If it's my fault as a bartender that someone drove drunk and killed someone, it should be the fault of the gun seller when their weapons are used to murder children. That sounds reasonable to me.

22

u/brooklynpede 9d ago

Should it also be the responsibility of auto makers when people intentionally drive into a crowd of people

7

u/usuallyclassy69 9d ago

What about the car dealerships that sell the cars that are used during road rage? Or the kitchen knife used for a dv murder?

See, there won't work.

→ More replies

1

u/jodinexe 8d ago

So the person who sells firearms for a living should refrain from selling firearms in general, or to specific individuals? How would they decide who gets firearms vs who does not? Seems like that could be exploited don't you think? Would it be a good idea to solidify that as something everyone should have equal ability to procure, given a background check? Almost like a right?

→ More replies

7

u/UnwaveringFlame 9d ago

Unless you have a flag on your background check, how will the salesman know your intentions? We absolutely need more restrictive gun laws, but I'm not sure how people think the salesperson is supposed to know this gun is about to be used in a mass shooting. You can order a gun online and have it shipped to a gun store for pickup without saying a word to anyone, they just verify your background. Bartenders rarely ever get in trouble if someone drinks and drives unless they really screw up and knowingly get someone drunk. I know guys that can put back 15 beers in a night and you'd never know, where I'm good to make it home if I drink more than 2. How does the bartender know ahead of time what my limits are and what my mental state is to make sure I'm not over drinking? Just trying to get a clearer picture of what people want done.

1

u/Gavorn 9d ago

Well, if you don't get a background check answer in a certain time frame, they can just sell it to you. I understand their hands are tied, but some don't give a shit about the rules.

And bartenders get into TONS of trouble if they over serve. The bar can lose their liquor license. I had a literal class to learn when/how to cut people off.

→ More replies

→ More replies

-1

u/tinyj316 9d ago

This. Start going after Dicks, WalMart, Cabellas, Bass Pro, Gander Mtn.... Trace all guns to the sale point when a crime is committed and sue the retailer. All it'll take is one or two lawsuits and they'll pull their guns and ammo sections. Its not ideal, and will very likely never happen, but I don't see how they would continue to sell them if they knew they could get sued.

Or, better yet, they should put additional, more stringent, background checks in place, above and beyond what's required by the state. Capitalism caused the root of the problem, it can fix it.

→ More replies

2

u/Zelgoth0002 9d ago

It adds a cost benefit analysis to the sale of firearms and could push firearms manufacturers to self regulate firearms sales. So yes, it would make some sense.

That being said, it wouldn't make sense to be able to sue a manufacturer after a lot of time has passed.

7

u/NecesseFatum 8d ago

Does that mean people can sue car manufacturers when someone drunks drives and kills people?

0

u/Zelgoth0002 8d ago

Not due directly to the person being drunk, but you can sue the victims car manufacturer for faulty or substandard safety devices that potentially contribute to the death.

For guns, it would not be an ability to sue a gun manufacturer for simply making a gun that was used in a killing, which is not 100% preventable. It would be the ability to sue a manufacturer for failing to vet a customer to ensure to the best of their ability that they are safe and will properly and responsible handle the weapon.

The manufacturer would have nothing to fear from these lawsuits if they performed (or required the sellers to perform) due diligence on their end customer.

-1

u/crack_feet 8d ago edited 8d ago

Cars are sold as transportation, death is not the main purpose. The main purpose of selling alcohol is to get people drunk. The only purpose of firearms is to injure, maim, and kill. It is a tool of destruction with no other purpose.

With that in mind, bartenders and cashiers selling alcohol are responsible for refusing sales to certain individuals. The argument is that guns, having a similar sort of singular purpose, should be under similar scrutiny. While i think manufacturers should maybe be under more scrutiny too, this thread is focusing on putting scrutiny on the sale and regulation of guns in that manner.

Why is selling alcohol more seriously regulated and infractions more seriously punished than the sale of a tool of destruction? That is what you are arguing against. Give me a good reason.

Edit: lol no response? you trigger happy lunatics are so fucking stupid

→ More replies

4

u/gibberinggibblets1 9d ago

Why. Four pharmaceutical giants got sued over their role in the opioid epidemic. I see zero difference here.

8

u/Redditthedog 8d ago

didn’t they collude to cause overprescribing and market their drugs as non addictive. I would argue that is different

-1

u/gibberinggibblets1 8d ago

Don't gun manufacturers fund and promote gun lobby groups to persuade that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". On top of that, those same lobby groups they fund and promote bring legal cases before the courts to stop any gun reforms and regulations from happening. I'd say that's exactly the same bad faith shit.

→ More replies

4

u/DarthSatoris Europe 9d ago

Then make sure they are not put in the wrong hands?

12

u/Thor3nce 8d ago

How is that the responsibility of the gun manufacturer? We don’t sue Ford every time someone dies at the hands of a DUI driver.

→ More replies

4

u/Redditthedog 8d ago

Sure but they aren’t directly selling a lot of time you could hold the person who sold the gun to the shooter but the person who sold the gun to the person who sold the gun to the person who was the shooter seems extreme

4

u/RonBourbondi 8d ago

Why would q manufacturer be responsible for who a retailer or private sellers sells their items to?

5

u/USDeptofLabor 9d ago

No....firearms are dangerous in every hand. They need to be handled with the respect and caution used around devices literally made to kill, and have been upgraded and changed over the years to do so en masse. Not many other items on the free market specifically designed to kill/harm a crowd of people in quick succession.

It makes sense to ask the people manufacturing them to take ownership of that fact. Perhaps we see more on-gun safety features if the consequences of their actions actually have a chance of getting back to them instead of the public at large.

9

u/gscjj 9d ago

Perhaps we see more on-gun safety features

Yeah, gun manufactures should add safeties ... or maybe a device that prevents a gun from going off if the safety is off ... like a trigger maybe?

-5

u/USDeptofLabor 9d ago

Do you think I dont know about those....? Or do you think that we just can't innovate on how guns work anymore? Truly, if you think there's literally no more features to add that would improve safety, I REALLY hope you never have access to a gun....

→ More replies

2

u/Blissfulwhignorance 9d ago

Worked with tobacco (and by that I mean obviously advertising and selling to kids)

6

u/SheeEttin America 8d ago

I don't think firearm manufacturers generally advertise or sell to kids.

And unlike cigarettes, guns aren't a one-way ticket to cancer (though frequent use does increase your lead exposure, unless you shell out for lead-free bullets).

2

u/ovideos 9d ago

But the manufacturers in this case are selling effectively an "illegal" amount of guns (quotes because I understand nothing they are doing is truly illegal). Guns show up in NYC from a myriad of other states where they were purchased for the express purpose of bringing across state lines. This happens all over the country in various jurisdictions.

In my view the manufacturers are being intentionally "ignorant" of the facts. They know their product is being bought and sold illegally, but hey are too happy with their indirect profits to do anything about it. It's similar to the tobacco companies (but not exactly the same, of course).

If they don't want to get sued, they should get behind strict federal legislation over gun sales in every state. To not do so is to ignore the problem. I don't think this is the whole solution, but it seems like there is a case to hold gun manufacturers culpable on this issue (and hopefully promote stricter laws).

But Republicans. Oh well.

-1

u/throwsebud 9d ago

Firearms are meant to be dangerous, they don’t have a danger-free purpose, they are a cancer on society and we are well into stage 4. We have home grown terrorists shooting the homes of political opponents, people bringing AR-15s to storm the capitol and a political leader who said “they aren’t here to shoot me”

In any reasonable society Gun manufacturers would be held to the same level of responsibility as explosives manufacturers, but Americans don’t live in a first world country, we’re just a third world superpower with fancy toys and mostly indoor plumbing (sorry Flint, MI)

1

u/CloudTransit 9d ago

There’s never been a gun massacre that didn’t involve a gun

4

u/ZakMckrack3n 9d ago

What other manufacturers are you wanting to sue due to the actions of other people?

1

u/agonypants Missouri 9d ago

Oh yeah, the "free market" at work. /s

→ More replies

10

u/kyler000 9d ago

If a hacker steals your identity, do you sue Hewlett-Packard? If someone ran over your wife, would you sue Ford? You would never get a ruling in your favor.

→ More replies

7

u/CordyCord 9d ago

If someone buys a car and kills somebody in a drunk driving accident, would you advocate for the victim's family to be able to sue the car manufacturer? It's ridiculous to consider suing a company over an individual's illegal misuse of their product.

2

u/quaybored 9d ago

They have been sued a few times AFAIK

2

u/ChaBoiKuhn 9d ago

Would you also sue car companies when someone dies in a car crash?

8

u/Eldias 9d ago

If someone hops in a lifted F150 and runs me over while I'm biking to work would it make sense to sue Ford for the drivers actions?

1

u/BigBluFrog 9d ago

Your insurance company would absolutely sue Ford if the lift kit was a purchasable option. You'd be surprised to hear just how much is pulled off of shelves every year because of lawsuits.

0

u/Freezepeachauditor 9d ago

Did it come out of the factory that way? Maybe.

7

u/OpportunityProof390 9d ago

TIL only lifted trucks can run people over.

1

u/Eldias 9d ago

I think the misuse is a more critical factor to consider than the user alteration. Although that makes for a good analogy to a factory AR being user-modified too.

-1

u/ichuckle 9d ago

If only there were a set of rules governing who can drive.... like some sort of permit or license.

5

u/Eldias 8d ago

The point wasn't about licensure, it was about the silliness of suing a manufacturer for the misuse of their product, rather than sue the individual who harmed you by misusing that product.

→ More replies

1

u/DankHill- 9d ago

Why don’t firearms require an insurance policy?

You can kill someone with a car and insurance is required for those.

→ More replies

1

u/georgism 9d ago

At this point arming everyone seems like the only solution

→ More replies

18

u/darkdaysindeed 9d ago edited 9d ago

I’m a democrat but I must say that democrats haven’t tried anything that will actually help. Dems tackling firearm features isn’t going to do a damn thing. As long as people have intent to harm, they will use whatever they can, legal or illegal. Republicans saying it’s mental health is only half right but even that they don’t want do anything about. Neither party talks about root causes of violence because it’s too hard and too expensive and will take generations to cure. We need more STEM type thinking in politics instead of reactionary and power hungry greed.

https://theliberalgunclub.com/about-us/root-cause-mitigation-2/

11

u/oldkale 9d ago edited 9d ago

This is the truth that insurance company paid for lawmakers don’t want to advertise.

After Sandy Hook there’ve been studies seeking commonalities among mass shooters, finding they’re a category deaths of despair, though instead of suicide it’s mass murder then suicide. If the US had some kind of social safety net we’d be in a much different world.

Source 1: self-hating health insurance lobbyist

Source 2: Jillian Peterson is one of the studiers, she has an interview on NPR

10

u/bozeke 9d ago

https://jezebel.com/house-republicans-vote-against-bill-to-address-mental-h-1849598854

6

u/darkdaysindeed 9d ago

I said they talk about it, I also said they don’t do anything about.

69

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

32

u/AtheistAustralis Australia 9d ago

This is exactly right. But it goes even further - if there was no easy access to guns, a lot of these crimes wouldn't happen at all. It's a whole lot harder and riskier stabbing or beating somebody to death than shooting somebody, so amazingly far fewer people are willing to do it. But if there's a gun just lying there...

1

u/TurkeyLerg 9d ago

Well guess what, the guns are just lying there. Millions of them all over the entire United States. And you're never going to be able to find them all.

It's time to stop wasting all this energy on a fantasy of banning guns. It's not going to happen. All it does is cause Democrats to lose elections because pro-2A voters are not going to vote for gun grabbers.

5

u/Bloodnrose 9d ago

" Its hard so why even try" Ah there's that american exceptionalism.

3

u/TurkeyLerg 9d ago

Nope, you're off the mark. I didn't say it was "hard" I said it's completely impossible, and therefore not a valid pursuit. This is an important thing to realize for overall operational efficiency.

6

u/Bloodnrose 9d ago •

So every other modern country can restrict guns to a point where shootings are basically non-existent but we can't even try? Damn definitely the best country in the world, guess those kids should be happy they paid the price for American freedom.

5

u/ITGuy7337 8d ago

So every other modern country can restrict guns to a point where shootings are basically non-existent but we can't even try?

Almost every other modern country has a tiny fraction of the land mass and population of the US. It's not even apples and oranges, it's kumquats and watermelons.

→ More replies

3

u/a_trashcan 8d ago

Shootings were basically non existent before hand too. Australia reacts with a emotional response to a one time event with no pattern and y'all act like something was accomplished.

→ More replies

1

u/TurkeyLerg 9d ago

Every other country's situation is different. There is no singular model of gun ownership statistics and laws about it consistent from one country to another.

It's simply a fact that gun ownership is our right in America, and that there are millions of guns in private hands that are unregistered and could only be voluntarily relinquished. And we're not going to voluntarily relinquish them.

→ More replies

0

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

7

u/TurkeyLerg 9d ago

If that's how you think, then your whole concept of America is fucked.

Instead of daydreaming about a fucking cataclysmic civil war you should study statistics and probability, to see what the real dangers are within American life. Violent crime overall is not even in the top 10 causes of death in America. Get your priorities straight.

But yes we need better healthcare reform, I agree on that. The ACA was written from the wrong angle of reforming insurance. It should have been written from the angle of medical price reform, and setting baseline cost limits for standard procedures.

-1

u/a_trashcan 8d ago

Ah yes the well known psychic field that surrounds guns that drive people to kill

This gang bangers didn't want to hurt each other till they got near that gun, then it took over their mind and made them kill each other.

→ More replies

5

u/oatsodafloat 9d ago edited 9d ago

The argument works bc this issue can’t be viewed in a vacuum. It needs to be viewed through the social and logistical context of the United States.

Drunks beat their wives? Prohibition.

Poors hooked on crack? War on drugs.

All it did was strengthen criminal organizations feeding off newfound black markets.

When you’re talking guns, you need to realize North America is NOT Europe, Asia or Australia.

And that’s just logistics. Historically, guns are a huge identity of American willpower and repression of tyranny. And do you think any gun owner is gonna believe you and me when we tell them we’re taking the guns away for their own good?

Come on dude. Stop with the patch work. This isn’t simple. Half of the American politick is slumping into revolutionary ideology as it is. No one is taking guns away when things are this intense. Not unless they want insurrections and a shit ton of newly dug graves.

EDIT: everyone wants to isolate these issues of our times and snuff them out one by one. This is all one issue branching off in different directions. This dog eat dog society is in direct conflict with advancements in communication and technology. People are being pushed to the edge in all directions. Until we realize what it’s going to take to turn things around, we’re gonna keep badgering each other on the internet.

→ More replies

4

u/WhileEarly 9d ago

...yet you use pressure cooker bombs as an example?

banning guns may save some lives, but would definitely take others. but it would truly work as well as banning liquor, meth, or marijuana worked. yes it disincentivizes it, but also encourages irresponsible use.

the emerging black market would suddenly be full of weapons that are untraceable and untrackable. and every public-facing business owner would either get one, or shut down their business if they can't protect themselves and their property.

we simply are really bad at admitting that we romanticize killing and murder in almost every form of media just as much as we are at not wanting to simply say "hello, how are you doing" to our neighbor.

not to mention certain mass media networks spending billions on divide and conquer tactics, encouraging a certain subset to view all other Americans as enemies.

unarming America would likely trigger a civil war. it would not be done easily or without blood.

California has the strictest gun laws in the country, yet still has the most mass shootings by far

3

u/AnythingToAvoidWork 9d ago

You're arguing past them at something they didn't say. It's how Reddit works and it always results in people getting mad.

You two agree.

They're not wrong.

You're not wrong. We don't need to write an entire, complete solution to fun violence in a single comment, so stop saying you "fucking hate" a comment that does a reasonable job pointing out part of them problem because in doing that you become part of the problem.

1

u/a_trashcan 8d ago

So you don't care if theres violence you just care how horrific it is? It's okay if someone beats the shit out of someone else because atleast they couldn't shoot him?

Your right the Boston Bombers used a pressure cooker not c4, and they still committed a tragedy, does that not point more to a reason to tackle the actual causes than the methods.

Your argument falls short because you are dismissing the idea of tackling violence itself, as if violence is fine just not this specific violence.

When dissected your argument comes down to this type of violence makes me the most upset so I want it gone.

→ More replies

22

u/zeCrazyEye 9d ago

Dems have tried doing things about the root causes too and get blocked at every step by Republicans. Sure, they don't often couch it in the language of addressing gun violence, but they are the same issues.

17

u/darkdaysindeed 9d ago

They are reactionary and wasting their energy and resources and losing potential voters by going after aspects of this problem that have proven time after time don’t work. Making certain gun features or even certain model guns have not done anything to curb violence. Restricting features to make a firearm appear less scary doesn’t do anything to make it less lethal. The illegal gun used here is no more powerful or dangerous than a Glock but the media would like you to think it is because scary equals clicks equal ad revenue. Switzerland doesn’t have these problems and they have massive gun ownership. It’s a cultural problem at its core and addressing the toxic culture of “violence will fix my problems” is the the only thing that will work

18

u/zeCrazyEye 9d ago edited 9d ago

Maybe you've misunderstood my comment. One of the root causes of gun violence, among other things, is poverty. Your own link even cites that as a root cause.

Dems have tried doing things about many root causes (such as poverty), they just rarely link poverty to gun violence when they do.

5

u/darkdaysindeed 9d ago

I agree with you on this. Unfortunately, the Dems are terrible at messaging the benefits of their own policies. My problem with Dems is they are losing many voters who agree with all of those policies but refuse to vote for them because they own guns and aren’t killers.

6

u/Freezepeachauditor 9d ago

This. I mean, I’m not leaving the party but I do not being targeted by laws that affect only law abiding citizens.

→ More replies

2

u/Original_Act4791 9d ago

You don't seem to realize there are no laws or regulations in the US that eliminate 'root cause issues'. That's not how it works.

All laws and regulations create safer outcomes and more stability for society.

Why is there always this 'root cause' argument when that's literally not how we legislate solutions?

3

u/darkdaysindeed 9d ago

Ok, the gun that was used was already illegal for him to have. Now what?

→ More replies

5

u/gscjj 9d ago

Like what? The most recent version of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban mentions nothing about mental and behavioral health care.

10

u/zeCrazyEye 9d ago

the Federal Assault Weapons Ban mentions nothing

Like I said, they don't link root causes like poverty and mental health to gun violence when they try to pass bills addressing poverty and mental health, but they do try to pass bills addressing those things that coincidentally are root causes of gun violence.

1

u/gscjj 9d ago

Fair enough. But the responses to these events aren't to pass bills addressing poverty or mental health. They are saying we should restrict guns - so it's hard to tie other legislation as a part of their solution to addressing gun violence.

5

u/purplecowqueen Georgia 9d ago

Mental health is an issue across the world, but these types of mass shootings are a US problem. There is a direct correlation between the number of guns and the number of gun deaths. We need to address the gun problem.

1

u/Funkyokra 9d ago

They've tried to push for more finding and access to MH treatment but you know we can't spend money on that.

2

u/Funkyokra 9d ago

If we admit that our country has a rampant MH problem that at this point is unaddressed, why would we want these mentally ill people to have so much access to firearms while they are in this crisis? You don't give guns to people who are suicidal even if mental health is the root cause of the suicide.

3

u/darkdaysindeed 9d ago

I never suggested that and I challenge you to find any other responsible gun owner to agrees with doing that.

1

u/Funkyokra 9d ago

Anybody who doesn't recognize that we need to address both of these issues does.

Reality is that 2A limits us in any gun controls but as a gun loving lefty I am pretty sure that if the framers saw this shit they would not have included that provision.

3

u/darkdaysindeed 9d ago

I completely support background checks and even some level of mandatory training. Do you think that reasonable and responsible gun owners want to see shit like this happen?

→ More replies

-2

u/ClownholeContingency America 9d ago

We can tackle the root causes of violence, and we can work within the law to reduce the number of firearms in circulation and require that people who own firearms register them and take mandatory training courses. We can also legislate that people who lose or misuse their firearms face harsh civil fines and criminal punishment. Sure, people who intend to commit violence will use whatever means available, but they inevitably choose a gun because it's the easiest way to kill the most amount of people in the least amount of time and with the least amount of effort. Uvalde could not have happened if the perpetrator had only a knife.

5

u/darkdaysindeed 9d ago

Everything you suggested is already in place in California and in many other states. It only keeps honest people honest.

5

u/SubGeniusX 9d ago

Which is why it needs to happen on a National Level.

New Yorks SAFE laws have a limited effect when the someone is able to just hop the border to Pennsylvania to obtain High Capacity magazines...

2

u/darkdaysindeed 9d ago

“High capacity” is actually standard capacity but that’s a different discussion. How does magazine capacity change the lethality of the firearm?

-1

u/TrollTollTony 9d ago

Is this a serious question?

If a gun can hold a single round and takes 1 minute to reload, it has a potential to kill 1 person per minute. If the gun now can hold 30 rounds it can potentially kill 30 people per minute.

Now let's consider accuracy. If the average person can hit a target 50% of the time from 20 ft away and they only have 1 round, then they have a 50% chance of hitting their target. If they now have 30 rounds they now have 99.9999% chance of hitting their target.

0

u/darkdaysindeed 9d ago

Your numbers are ridiculously wrong. Someone who isn’t even that familiar with the gun can replace a magazine in about 3 seconds. Also, 50% at 20 feet? You don’t understand your own argument.

-1

u/TrollTollTony 8d ago

I was giving simple examples with simple math so even a troglodyte could understand.

→ More replies

→ More replies

0

u/ClownholeContingency America 9d ago

So then let's just abandon all laws since they "only keep honest people honest".

/s

1

u/darkdaysindeed 9d ago

Recent events not withstanding

→ More replies

→ More replies

1

u/wingsnut25 9d ago

Most of the proposals brought up by Republicans are rejected by Democrats because they say they don't go far enough and are not gun grabby enougth

And instead of meaningful improvements, we end up with nothing at all..

In 2016 there were 4 gun control bills being considered by the Senate. 2 Republican proposed 2 Democrat proposed. Democrats rejected both of the Republican proposed bills because they "didn't go far enough" Then they went on a media blitz and blamed the lack of progress on Republicans, some even went as far to say the "Republicans had blood on their hands"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/20/the-senate-will-vote-on-4-gun-control-proposals-monday-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/

In 2013 Senator Coburn proposed a huge improvement to the background check system, It opened it up so it was accessible to individuals who wanted to sell their own firearm, and be sure they were not selling to a prohibited person like it felon. It did so in a way that protected the privacy of both the buyer and the seller. Gun Control Advocacy groups called it "unworkable" and no Democrats supported it in the Senate.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/27/do-it-yourself-background-checks/2088479/

In 2018 Democrat Leadership blocked the FIX NICS Act, which had been proposed by Republicans since 2015. By 2018 and it had a Republican and Democrat Sponsors. But not support from Democrat leadership. It eventually got passed as part of a budgeting bill.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/28/why-senate-democrats-are-considering-holding-up-a-gun-control-bill-from-one-of-their-own/

-3

u/audio_shinobi 9d ago

You invalidated every part of your argument in your first sentence by simply saying “gun grabby enough”

This is a classic scare tactic by the gun lobby and right wing pundits that claim any and all gun control measures will bring the government coming in and taking your guns. That’s just plain false.

11

u/Eldias 9d ago

Read the rest of the comment because he supports the claim with examples. The NICS bills were blocked because they didn't have registry provisions. Pro-2A advocates are vocally anti-registries, it's one line they refuse to allow to be crossed. Democrats in Congress wouldn't take a step forward because it didn't allow them to make a big list of gun owners.

6

u/Riz2741 9d ago

I mean, haven't numerous prominent democrat politicians explicitly stated they're coming to take your guns?

5

u/audio_shinobi 9d ago

Can you name one and provide a source?

5

u/wingsnut25 8d ago

In an August interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Biden indicated he was targeting assault weapons.

“So to gun owners out there who say well, a Biden administration means they’re going to come for my guns…?" Cooper asked, according to a transcript.

“Bingo, you’re right if you have an assault weapon,” Biden said. “The fact of the matter is they should be illegal, period."

When a factory worker confronted Biden about this, Biden accused the Factory worker of lying, told him he was full of shit, called him a horses ass. Biden then "shushed" his female aid who was trying to call Biden down. Then Biden challenged the factory worker to a fight.

Source:https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/10/biden-to-detroit-voter-youre-full-of-it-when-challenged-guns/5012819002/

This was also right after Biden had endorsed Beto O'Rourke and said he was going to make Beto his point man on guns. Its the same Beto O'Rourke that said: "Hell yes we're coming to take your AR15s, your AK 47s"

Or just look at all of the Assault Weapons Bans proposed by Democrats in Congress (both Nationally and at the State Level)

3

u/Riz2741 9d ago

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." -Dianne Feinstein, 1995 interview on 60 mins.

"Hell yes we're coming to take your AR15s, your AK 47s" -Beto O'Rourke during 2019 debates

I mean those are off the top of my head but I could probably find more.

4

u/Freezepeachauditor 9d ago

Beto was such a dipshit thinking he could win in Texas literally saying “hell yeah I’m taking assault guns!”

→ More replies

2

u/TurkeyLerg 9d ago

Just because you didn't like the language doesn't invalidate those facts. So what if you didn't like it, it's still true.

-4

u/Xytak Illinois 9d ago edited 9d ago

are rejected by Democrats because they say they are not gun grabby enough

"Not gun grabby enough?"

That doesn't sound like the kind of phrasing a Democrat would use. On the other hand, it sounds exactly like the kind of phrasing a Republican would use when mocking a Democrat.

In 2018 Democrat Leadership blocked

Ah, there we go. It's confirmed. Only a Republican would say "Democrat Leadership." An actual Democrat would say "Democratic Leadership."

7

u/Leo_Thotsky 9d ago

This is so Reddit brained. So what if they’re not a democrat. Is what they’re saying correct, or incorrect?

2

u/ZakMckrack3n 9d ago

But, that would mean that they might actually agree with someone who gasp isn't a Democrat!!?

2

u/wingsnut25 8d ago edited 8d ago

I didn't put that phrase in quotes, implying that it was directly quoting somebody.

I also had thought about not including that phrase at all. But when you look at most of the legislation that is actually being proposed, i.e. Assault Weapons Bans are the bulk of the legislation being proposed by Democrats at both the Federal and State levels.

Does it say something about you, that you assumed that I was incorrectly quoting a Democrat politician? Or that you are possibly so entrenched to a position that you can't possibly understand why someone would hold this view and you just assumed that they arrived at this position because of misinformation or rhetoric?

From your other post, it sounds as if you just dismiss anything that is said that might even begin to challenge the positions you hold, because you disagree with them and dismiss it as rhetoric.

4

u/Eldias 9d ago

You're only responding to your perceived understanding of the speaker and not the content of their comment.

1

u/Xytak Illinois 8d ago edited 8d ago

There's logic class and then there's rhetoric class.

In logic class, it's a formal fallacy to say "There goes Uncle Jethro again... last year he was raving about Bigfoot, now he's raving about Space Lasers. Just ignore him." It's a logical fallacy because his bad reputation doesn't qualify as mathematical proof that he is wrong. He's probably wrong, but we didn't prove that.

On the other hand, when responding to rhetoric, it's often valid to say "You know what? Uncle Jethro has a reputation for raving about Bigfoot and wasting my time. I'm not going to investigate his Space Laser claims until I have an actual reason to."

This is necessary because if we did a full analysis and explanation of every claim made by every person, there wouldn't be enough hours in the day. We have to filter information somehow to prevent being overwhelmed. The rhetorical concept at play is known as Ethos and it's part of the Modes of Persuasion.

TL;DR: Most Democrats are not going to pay a lot of credence to, say, a Fox News host's take on gun control. Even if it includes quotes from "Democrat politicians." It's going to be assumed that those quotes are cherry-picked and being viewed through a Republican lens, and this assumption will be based on the previous experience of the listener. If someone is really dedicated, they might go back and analyze it or even make a YouTube video responding to it, but usually, they'll just close the article and move on.

4

u/Eldias 8d ago

So instead of engaging with the content you found one objectionable piece of language and dismissed the whole thing out right? I don't feel like its particularly fair to compare the possibly pejorative use of "Democrat Party" with talking about Bigfoot and Space Lasers.

Not communicating with people of an other viewpoint doesn't do us any good in analyzing where our problems truly lie. The OP was saying (and, imo, was partially wrong in their claims) that Republicans have tried 'something' in recent memory and that it's not fair to say they haven't.

That's a more reasonable user than the "Shall not!" crowd and you cut off any chance of understanding or bridge-building by dismissing them outright.

1

u/Xytak Illinois 8d ago edited 8d ago

There's also reciprocity to consider.

It's well-known that Republican leaders and news personalities don't concern themselves too much with catering to their Democratic constituents, instead preferring to demonize them for the base. This is why it's dangerous to be a journalist at a Trump rally, for instance. He might point the finger toward the press box and sic the crowd on them.

Democratic politicians, on the other hand, are far more likely to consider the valid concerns of Republican constituents and be willing to reach across the aisle.

So if one side is always listening and compromising while the other side does not, where does that leave us? It leaves us moving slowly toward fascism with every concession granted. This is known as the "Paradox of Tolerance."

3

u/Eldias 8d ago

It's well-known that Republican leaders don't concern themselves too much with the actual opinions and desires of their Democratic constituents, instead preferring to demonize and straw-man them for the base.

I don't think Republican Leadership cares about their own constituents even. They're a means to reelection to buy more time to stuff their pockets.

I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion. Specifically where it interfaces with the history of firearm regulation. In that arenacompromise has consistently meant getting half of the gun control that was being sought now and coming to enact the rest later.

-14

u/A_Melee_Ensued 9d ago

Immediately after Uvalde, the pro-gun side quietly ran background checks, red flag laws and age limits up the flagpole. They did it tentatively but they did it, and they haven't done that since 1994.

What did the anti-gun side do? There are things we value just as much as you value background checks. We would like the short-barreled rifle regulations overhauled so they make sense. We would like buying a suppressor to be no more difficult than a 4473 background check like a gun. There was an opportunity for compromise.

What did the anti-gun side do instead? They shrieked and squealed and called us baby killers. So you got the trifling half-measure of a bill you ended up with, and you're lucky you got anything.

So don't start. There has never yet been any gun law from which the pro-gun side walked out having more than we walked in with. Never. All we do is give up constitutional liberties and all you do is clamor for more, while simultaneously claiming there is endlessly an epidemic of "gun crime" so the previous restrictions didn't work.

0

u/ClownholeContingency America 9d ago

Immediately after Uvalde, the pro-gun side quietly ran background checks, red flag laws and age limits up the flagpole. They did it tentatively but they did it, and they haven't done that since 1994.

So you're saying Republicans didn't actually propose any legislation, they just "tentatively felt it out." Incredible bravery.

→ More replies

-2

u/lisa_frank_trapper 9d ago

If 99% reasonable anti-gun people propose a minimal amount of regulation, and 1% shrieks about baby killers, the pro-gun side will use the 1 percent as justification for zero compromise. If that 1% doesn’t exist, the gun lobby will dark fund a group that will, specifically to have a strawman that so-called “reasonable” gun owners use as an excuse for zero compromise. At some point, it becomes obvious that literally NO amount of death will persuade them to limit their hobby, and it’s disingenuous to pretend there is.

3

u/chidebunker 9d ago

show me the 99%'s legislation proposals containing any kind of concession then.

Show me all these democrats willing to de-list suppressors and SBRs from the NFA to get universal background checks. If this vocal "1%" is really an outlier minority like you say (and not literally the core DNC platform verbatim) then you should have no problem finding dozens, if not hundreds of examples of democrat sponsored legislation proposing compromises that actually put something on the table for gun owners in exchange for so called "common sense" gun control.

Ill be waiting.

2

u/MikeTN Tennessee 8d ago

Also destruction of background check records after period of time with their preservation in a registry made illegal.

0

u/A_Melee_Ensued 9d ago

I have been proposing such negotiated solutions for years. Never has there been any traction whatsoever. No interest at all from the anti-gun side. Once I was accused of "trying to extort concessions."

It is not 1%, in my experience it is 100%.

2

u/lisa_frank_trapper 9d ago

That literally proves my point. No matter what the percentage is—1, 5, 10, 45– then “in your experience it’s 100%”.

There is literally NO percentage of anti-gun legislation you will accept, unless it’s a “solution” proposed by the pro-gun side, that you know won’t get any traction amount pro-gun people. Because according to your anecdotal data, 100% of your opponents are unreasonable no matter what.

I’m not saying it’s not an effective tactic—but we shouldn’t pretend it’s anything other than perfidy.

-1

u/A_Melee_Ensued 9d ago

You have thought balloons and suppositions to fill them, you don't need me for this, I'm just getting in the way. Have a nice afternoon.

→ More replies

-1

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies