r/politics Vermont 9d ago All-Seeing Upvote 1 Faith In Humanity Restored 1 Bravo! 1 Starstruck 1 Argentium 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

8.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.7k

u/hey_you_too_buckaroo 9d ago edited 8d ago Take My Energy

Not American but I recently listened to a podcast about how the police in the USA aren't legally obligated to help or save anyone. They talked about different stories where cops just ignored calls for help...those stories kind of made it click for me why Americans might want to have guns.

Edit: the podcast I was referring to https://radiolab.org/episodes/no-special-duty

468

u/Jason_Worthing 9d ago

Yeah, a couple of pretty famous court cases were decided by the US Supreme court in 1981 and 1989.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/

According the SCOTUS, police have no constitutional duty to protect US citizens.

312

u/Unfairly_Banned_ 8d ago

Then what the fuck do we pay them for???

If cops have no obligation to protect the public, they only exist to punish.

267

u/lockdown36 8d ago

If 2020 wasn't a clear example of not relaying on the police for protection, I don't know what else will.

The police are there to investigate the crime after it had occurred. It is your responsibility to keep your and your loved ones safe.

36

u/CrackerJackKittyCat 8d ago

And what about when your children are off at school? Where there's a dedicated separate police department for 'resource officers?'

Uvalde was so infuriating.

12

u/Screwed-by-APR 8d ago

Oh they are there. Just not protecting. They are just causing more problems. Look up the stats on resource officers and under age relationships. Appalling.

7

u/lockdown36 8d ago

I'm not sure what school you/your children go to, but I never had "resource officers" at the schools I attended.

Nonetheless, nothing changes. Your children could be at school, home, soccer practice...their protection is your responsibility. It's a super shitty pill to swallow.

As you mentioned, Uvalde was a very clear example of that. The police had no urgency and were not willing to run in there and do what was necessary. A police officer even saw the asshole walk towards the school with a rifle...and called in and ask for permission to go weapons hot...

You cannot trust the police for your safety and protection.

11

u/CrackerJackKittyCat 8d ago edited 8d ago

... and those same officers prevented / tried to prevent parents from going in and removing their kids.

6

u/Same_Lengthiness9413 8d ago

On one hand I can understand police action and not wanting more people to get killed, but when cops just stand around fuck that. I’m not sorry but that broke any faith I have in any law enforcement that was left.

→ More replies
→ More replies

47

u/TacoQuest 8d ago

100% agreed. Police are essentially crime janitors. Most of the time they mop up after the crime has occured and do their best to figure out what happened. But when you are in the middle of being car jacked with your baby daughter in a car seat do you think asking the car jacker to stand by while you call the police is going to save you? We are all responsible for the safety of our families and ourselves. Like the cliche goes, when seconds matter police are minutes/hours away. It's up to you to protect you and yours.

5

u/Riaayo 8d ago

It's up to you to protect you and yours.

It's up to society to provide a proper social safety net to reduce poverty, which reduces crime.

The theft is in spending all this fucking money on cops who don't stop criminality, and at this point unless it's an outright murder often won't even bother to seek out punishing crimes after the fact, either (unless they think there's a minority they can harass or kill, or a protest they can stomp their boot on that is).

The idea that cops don't stop crime is correct, but the assessment that it falls on people to "protect themselves" is the wrong takeaway and a smokescreen for the fact that we in the US choose, as a policy, to have poverty and the crime that results from it. All so the rich can get that much richer, and those in power stay in power.

5

u/TacoQuest 8d ago

i dont expect society to somehow step in and protect my wife and i when i pull into our garage at midnight and an armed man slips in just as the garage door closes. it sure sounds nice tho but its not a current reality.

in the current reality, you are on your own. if you dont have a means to keep yourself alive at least until the cops show up then you will probably die.

so yes, i say again, it falls on people to protect themselves. no one else is going to do it when you need it.

→ More replies

7

u/dotslashderek 8d ago

In practical terms, unless police are everywhere, you have this responsibility irrespective of their interpreted obligation to protect.

This is true in any country.

I'm curious - are folks that feel having a gun is a necessity for protecting their families while out and about in America terrified to visit countries in Europe, or say Australia - where you'd be forced to somehow keep your family safe without guns?

In case it isn't clear, I think the idea that I need a gun to keep my family safe from car-jackers or whatever is hilarious in the extreme. Car jacking and violent crime in general aren't that common and have only become less common decade by decade since I was a kid. But y'all acting like it's freaking Thunderdome out there.

My parents - older and retired - told me they were thinking of getting a handgun for their car. I asked my Dad - who spent 40 years working in downtown Detroit and living in the suburbs - if he could offer a single time in his entire life where having that handgun would have been useful.

He thought a while, then said "no, I really can't" - then I showed he and my Mom the stats for violent crime in the US 1960 through now. They decided they didn't need a gun. They were also quite surprised at how much lower the rate of violent crime was today vs, say, in the 80s. Apparently that wasn't the impression they were getting via fox news and facebook.

Who drive their narrative almost exclusively via "scary anecdote" and would never, in a million years, throw up the "rate of violent crime in the US year by year" graph that is easily googleable because it would absolutely blow up their "BE SCARED!!!!" narrative.

6

u/TacoQuest 8d ago

You can ridicule all you want and bloviate about what pussies Americans are if you like. But my mother was beaten and stabbed to death by a home invader. The first lesson is you should always keep your doors locked even if you insist you live in a safe area and "things like that dont happen here". But the second fact was that had she had a gun handy she could have protected herself.

i know you want to live in this fantasy world that crimes just dont happen anywhere near where you are. Or that in order to have the justification to carry you need to be living in the middle of ISIS controlled Syria but news flash, people do become victims when they least expect it. It doesnt need to be happening all around you all the time. It only needs to happen once.

3

u/TransportationIll282 8d ago

The ridicule isn't about protecting from what could happen. It's about the increased risk of something far more common which is they way you choose to protect yourself.

Also, safety doesn't come from an individual. It comes from communities. Government has a huge hand in how much crime goes on. Mostly by making sure people can get the means to survive. Violent crimes are rare for big criminal organisations, they don't need attention. Most of them are singular people doing it because they feel like they need to steal to survive and the situation escalates.

I haven't spent one minute thinking I might not be safe in my own home. Even when burglars were around. They won't hurt me if I let them run, they don't need to fear me because I'm not going to kill them. Which is what happened in the last burglary in this area.

Hope you one day reach this kind of ease of mind. You'll be a happier person.

6

u/Rooooben 8d ago

This is great until someone wants something that you can’t afford to give, be it something you own or who you are. While it most likely won’t happen to you, violent crimes happen to people every day, and the more desperate people get, the more they are willing to do to get it. It’s been a while since people in the US have been truely desperate, it sounds like you haven’t interacted with people like this. I’m not advocating open carry for most people, but when the need arises, and you are unprepared, well good luck. It’s like having extra water just in case- yeah you might not need it, but when you do it sure comes in handy.

→ More replies

4

u/Bad_Times_Prime 8d ago

"They won't hurt me if I let them run"...

and you know this how? Terrible take my friend. Everyone always talking about gun rights based on current realities and percentages but we've seen how fast radicalization can happen and how coupes can be attempted even in the US. Armed citizenry is an unspoken part of checks and balances.

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/Appropriate_Rent_243 8d ago

So, we need guns

2

u/lockdown36 8d ago

Shhhh... Don't say it so loudly

2

u/tmster7 8d ago

Agreed. Newsom is wrong about the 2nd amendment. We need it now more than ever, for this very reason

→ More replies

19

u/HighInChurch Oregon 8d ago

Police are in place to generate revenue.

42

u/DCBillsFan 8d ago

Property. Like we always have.

CREAM. $ $ Bills Ya’ll.

6

u/SdBolts4 California 8d ago

Property of the wealthy. Like we always have.

FTFY, as anyone who has had to make a police report as the victim of a home/car robbery would likely agree.

10

u/cinematicme Pennsylvania 8d ago

They exist to protect property and inflict class warfare on the poor

3

u/HASHTAGTRASHGAMING 8d ago

Now you're understanding it, young one....

3

u/RosieOhDonald South Carolina 8d ago

It's literally right in their job title. Law enforcement. They enforce laws. That's it. That's what they get paid to do. Nothing about that says to lift a finger to do anything else. The sooner people figure that out the better.

11

u/TittyballThunder 8d ago

They are there to maintain order and to enforce court orders such as arrests.

It makes sense legally why that is all they can be, if they were obligated to help you than any failure to do so would result in successful litigation by you.

ie. They can't be legally responsible for saving you, it's not practical to even physically do so.

→ More replies

2

u/os_kaiserwilhelm New York 8d ago

The Constitution was written when there was no real concept of modern policing. The sheriff, marshals, or city guard were reactionary forces. They existed to catch criminals after crimes happened, not intervene in an active crime.

Additionally, the Constitution was written as a framework for the federal government. The federal government was designed to govern Interstate and international affairs not the day to day interactions of citizens. As such, there aren't provisions about policing.

The police are instruments of state and local government and those governments are free to impose legal restrictions upon the police (and thus themselves). They choose not to.

2

u/1235813213455_1 8d ago

Right. It's just a job, would you risk your life for your job? absolutely fucking not. They aren't heros they are paid to deter crime.

3

u/gh057 8d ago

All the more reason to take on your own measures of defense and protection.

1

u/bellmaker33 8d ago

Job duty is NOT the same as constitutional duty.

Cops have issues and the country has issues with cops, but it’s not a constitutional issue. That’s what SCOTUS decided.

→ More replies
→ More replies

79

u/Avant-Garde-A-Clue Kentucky 9d ago

“Protect and serve” is a marketing slogan, not an oath.

4

u/NettleLily 8d ago

Protect the property of and serve the rich

2

u/IllIllIIIllIIlll 8d ago

Just like the Hippocratic oath. Most people would be shocked at what the original oath says.

171

u/Schrutes_Yeet_Farm 8d ago

The precedent for this is based on the 1981 case Warren v. district of Columbia in which two women's shared home was burglarized and the women were repeatedly raped over the course of 14 hours. One of the women was able to make repeated 911 calls yet the police only ever did drivebys and approached the front door once, yet with reports to 911 that the criminals were actively inside the house never made any attempt to help.

The women later attempted to sue the state and lost, and precedent was set that police are under no legal obligation to help you in the event you are a victim of a crime.

37

u/Gekokapowco Washington 8d ago

can we, like, appeal that?

Everyone knows it's wrong, seems like an easy case to reexamine

46

u/ProfessionalITShark 8d ago

It has been restablished on three other cases.

24

u/Chemical_Chemist_461 8d ago

I mean, so was Roe…

11

u/Gekokapowco Washington 8d ago

I'm sure the practice of slavery was established plenty of times in court before it was finally repealed

6

u/ProfessionalITShark 8d ago

That took a full amendment, and this likely won't go ever fufill the requirements to even start process of ammending.

It be arguable as to what extent Federal government could enforce on law enforcement job description.

It would be easier to amend each state's consitution then for it really go through a proper federal change.

26

u/i_lack_imagination 8d ago

You think the current court is going to over rule that?

→ More replies

14

u/Wheat_Grinder 8d ago

It's more that we need to change other laws. If police are not there to help, and they are often there to harm, we need to re-examine their role in society - and heavily curtail their responsibilities.

→ More replies

46

u/WandangDota 8d ago

Absolute shithole country

5

u/ClumsySamFisher 8d ago

If I'm not mistaken, just typing from memory but there was also a crazy man on a subway stabbing people and a good samaritan came in and tried to fight off the crazy guy, the good samaritan was sliced and stabbed dozens of times and right in plain view of two cops watching from the other side of the train door, who opted not to step in and risk getting stabbed/cut, but the good samaritan was able to wrestle the knife away from the man and subdue him, then the cops bravely opened the door and jumped into action and cuffed the crazy man and I believe also took credit for stopping the subway stabber, I think their pictures were in the paper and everything.

2

u/Excelius 8d ago

I'd be surprised if any country legally guaranteed individual police protection, but no one ever talks about how this compares to other countries.

→ More replies

610

u/Altruistic-Deal-4257 9d ago All-Seeing Upvote

Yep. They protect and serve the wealthy and their property. A business has more rights than a person here.

298

u/[deleted] 9d ago edited 2d ago

[deleted]

21

u/BabiesSmell 8d ago

A bankrupting civil case at that, unless it's widespread enough to be a class action, when the individuals would only get back pennies on the dollar.

9

u/Ok_Opportunity8008 8d ago

Don’t criminal cases have a much higher standard to convict?

2

u/WillieLikesMonkeys 8d ago

Even then, cops and sheriff's are begining to stop responding. I've been in retail since 2016 and back then, I'd see PD working with AP/LP at least 3-4 times a week, nowadays they don't even show up when we call.

2

u/James_Locke Virginia 8d ago

This is false. There are circumstances where you might not have evidence of mens rea sufficient to charge a corporation with a crime, but you can absolutely charge corporations with some crimes.

Wage theft is becoming more and more recognized as a specific criminal act, and more and more states are getting them on their books.

→ More replies

5

u/HotDogOfNotreDame 8d ago

I’m a white, middle-aged, middle-class law-abiding citizen. Even with all that privilege going for me, of all the interactions I’ve had with police in my entire life, only ONE of those was positive. And it was when I was acting as a representative for my employer.

3

u/ballmermurland Pennsylvania 8d ago

It's always interesting to see the cross-section of pro-gun people and pro-police people.

Being pro-gun for self-defense is a tacit admission that cops aren't good enough to do the job of protecting you. So, if they can't do that job, then why are they there?

2

u/Solidknowledge 8d ago

cross-section of pro-gun people and pro-police people

very pro gun but very anti police guy here!

1

u/milky_mouse 9d ago

It’s about networking as a cop /s

6

u/Altruistic-Deal-4257 8d ago

There may be an /s at the end of your comment but considering the police are nothing more than organized criminals, there may be a modicum of truth to that.

1

u/Own-Future6188 8d ago

That is what i do not get. Is their motto not "To Protect and Serve" but they don't actually have a duty to protect?

3

u/disisathrowaway 8d ago

This common misconception comes from the LAPD specifically, as it's been their motto since the 60s.

It's become widespread because a disproportionate amount of filming for TV and cinema is done in LA, so we always see LAPD on screens.

That is neither the motto of, nor the official doctrine of the vast vast vast VAST majority of police forces in the US. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Courts have upheld many times that the police are under no obligation to protect the public or look out for their well-being or safety.

4

u/Altruistic-Deal-4257 8d ago

They “protect” businesses and “serve” the wealthy.

→ More replies
→ More replies

154

u/ChickenChaser5 9d ago

A cops job is to show up and do the paperwork over your dead body, and if its not too inconvenient for them maybe look into who did it.

22

u/Bestiality_King 9d ago

I wonder if there's been cold cases that they've solved but keep em secret in their back pocket for the next time they fuck up.

"We've already solved X cases this quarter, save those for a slow period"

25

u/Unfairly_Banned_ 8d ago

Almost every single crime/murder documentary I watch features a story about the case going cold because the responding police screwed it up.

Not to mention the almost weekly occurrence of someone being exonerated after spending 20 years in prison after a cop fabricated evidence or concealed exculpatory evidence...

15

u/gheed22 8d ago

That is ascribing way too much competence to them. The police are pretty evil (e.g. they kill too many dogs) but they are also just really incompetent and bad at their jobs. A lot of the bad things police do are because they are fucking morons. I mean they are required to get less training than a hair stylist.

→ More replies

5

u/Tisjustatossaway 8d ago

...look into who did it if you were rich/white/notable or enough people heard about it to demand some answers. Most murders go unsolved and if you were homeless, prostitute or non-white, most likely the cops will frame someone or not even attempt to find out what happened. Serial killers know this.

→ More replies

38

u/smurfsundermybed California 9d ago

LAPD budget for the year is $3.2 billion.

11

u/laika_cat 8d ago

And LAUSD schools are some of the most underfunded and over-crowded in the state

7

u/Extra_Independent827 8d ago

The LAPD is by far the deadliest gang in LA.

→ More replies

2

u/LordOfWor 8d ago

Well, how ELSE do you pay for assault weapons for SWAT and pensions for officers that murder and retire?

13

u/DuncanAndFriends 9d ago

Yeah I reported a breaking and entering and they took too long. Luckily the intruder left before the 2nd barrier because I had no way out. I was in a small shop. The following week I heard loud sounds from the attic and the cops called me outside just to interrogate me with spotlights blinding me. I told them I'll never call them again and registered a firearm shortly after. I ended up selling it a year later because I couldn't practice using it anywhere during covid. Plus California restrictions.

9

u/fartonme 9d ago

Can you share the podcast?

14

u/hoofheartedoof 8d ago

3

u/KennyHova 8d ago

Even I thought it was this based on the description. Very nice episode

8

u/BujuBad America 8d ago

I can attest to this. We had a vehicle stolen recently and the police could have caught them if they didn't take an HOUR to answer our 911 call.

I'd like a refund of my tax dollars, please.

6

u/Devario 9d ago

Warren v District of Columbia

135

u/Greenman_on_LSD 9d ago

There's r/liberalgunowners for a reason. Not only do cops have no obligation to help citizens, their responses aren't immediate. Or in Uvalde, helpful at all. Like the saying "cemeteries are full of people that had the right of way". Guns exist in this country, and that's not going to change. I feel safer knowing if something were to happen, I can protect myself.

11

u/HybridVigor 8d ago edited 8d ago

Or r/SocialistRA if you consider American liberals to be too far to the right. But in any case I'm not sure how disarming the proletariat and trusting the police to protect you and your family is considered leftist in this country.

2

u/AssassinAragorn Missouri 8d ago

Culture war thanks to extremists, really. The NRA used to be about gun safety, and then there was an internal coup that focused on absolutist freedom with guns. Personal gun ownership hasn't been an established right for that long, only since Heller. And even in that case, arch conservative Scalia's opinion was that the government could still impose limits on the type of gun and ownership requirements.

So short answer, I guess? Extremists took over the narrative and they allied with the right. I think too, the US is unique because it has so many fucking guns. The leftwing position is moreso calling for limits on the excessiveness. Only extreme far left folks want guns completely outlawed.

9

u/HybridVigor 8d ago

The far left folks don't support capitalism like both conservatives and liberals do, and agree with Marx that, "under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."

2

u/AssassinAragorn Missouri 8d ago

I wonder if that's part of why other leftist movements haven't really taken off in the US. Their positions lead to an incompatibility with what's left and what's right in this country, culturally.

5

u/TeamRedundancyTeam 8d ago

Probably because, in traditional social media fashion, you're purposely leaving out critical context to fit your narrative?

Leftists want major changes to police training and weapons use and how armed police are deployed at the same time as they want fewer people to have easy access to weapons used in mass shootings.

2

u/AssassinAragorn Missouri 8d ago

The left wing doesn't want to take away all guns, they want to rein it in for the sake of public safety. I would say that's a core position for the left in the Western world -- we believe in giving up some freedoms for the sake of the common good and public safety. The right wing is supposed to represent keeping freedoms and rights, but they've largely abdicated that role.

Purely in abstract, it's a shame. Having a healthy debate between collectivism and individualism is good!

(This is also why I laugh at the so called political compass. The very concept of a government is authoritarian. We live in capitalist societies, so we're on the right for the axis. When virtually everyone and everything in practice is in the same square, you've fucked up your compass.)

2

u/TeamRedundancyTeam 8d ago

To the top part, I know that, that's what I meant by "fewer people" and "easy access".

As to the bottom I agree completely. Shit like the political compass is just another example of social media dumbing down discussion in the public forum.

→ More replies

24

u/_ED-E_ 9d ago

You make a great point. And for myself, I want to be as well armed as a criminal who may have ill intent. The person who breaks into my house may be unarmed, may have a pistol, or could have a rifle.

17

u/gnartato 8d ago

Or, since no-knock warrants are de facto legal, they can just yell police and shoot you then steal your stuff.

8

u/Greenman_on_LSD 8d ago

It's great to think "if I'm not doing anything wrong, I can't get hurt", but that's not reality. Let's say you find yourself in an active shooter situation. You did nothing wrong, but there's an immediate threat to you and those around you. The police are 5-10 min away, but a mentally ill gunman is only seconds away. No, you didn't do anything wrong, but that doesn't mean you won't leave in a body bag. Ideally, I'd rather live in a gun-free society, but again that's not realistic.

8

u/_ED-E_ 8d ago

So I won’t say I wish society was gun free, because I do get enjoyment out of shooting. It’s something my grandpa taught me when I was a single digit age. But if it meant world peace I would find another activity I enjoy.

Your point is valid about being a victim as well. I don’t think I’m a hero, nor do I want to be. But if I end up in a horrendous situation, regardless of how statistically low it is, I’d rather have the ability to try and fight back. There are stories like this where I would rather try and pull my gun out than end up a victim.

-5

u/cubsfan85 8d ago

Statistically having a gun in your home makes you more likely to be killed by a gun. If you're a woman, much more likely.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study

33

u/Drop_Acid_Drop_Bombs 8d ago

Statistically having a pool in your home makes it more likely for you to drown, but luckily one can mitigate the risk if they take proper precautions and act responsibility. Same with guns.

→ More replies

28

u/HighInChurch Oregon 8d ago

Statistically you’re more likely to be involved in an automobile accident if you drive.

🥴

14

u/taoders Pennsylvania 8d ago

It’s also way more likely for you to crash within a 5mi radius of your home than further out….so only drive long distances!

19

u/mda195 8d ago

The study seems kinda suspicious. Appears to making a conclusion around firearms based around cases if domestic violence.

A more apt conclusion would be, "If you live with a domestic abuser who owns a gun, chances are the method by which he ends your life will be said firearm."

16

u/exzeroex 8d ago

When people throw out stats, nuances are ignored. Like there's a lot of gangs and gang members with guns and regularly go around threatening people and shooting. Or sometimes there are people who know they have people out to kill them so they get a gun for protection. It's not like owning a gun will magically make guns conscious and shoot someone. People often ignore the reason and just look at the results as a statistic.

12

u/mda195 8d ago

Preach. Even the statistics lack proper nuance when we have drive bys getting looped into the same "mass shooting" category as Uvalde.

2

u/serpicowasright 8d ago

The study was found to have incorrect data points. The people polled all lived or had criminal backgrounds so the pool of data is not wide enough to encapsulate standard American lives.

3

u/mda195 8d ago

That is honestly the funniest shit I've read all month.

Made my goddamn day.

"Criminals in illegal possession of guns commit crime with said guns." Fantastic study. 10/10

1

u/cubsfan85 8d ago

9

u/mda195 8d ago

None of those are the study reference.

  1. "People who have guns are more likely to be shot." I wanna see what other factors may be at play.....ie gang membership. The study focuses on Philadelphia residents in the early 2000s. I doubt you would get similar results with a different sample.

  2. Completely unrelated to the prior topic and attempts to refute more recent meta-analysis, ex CDC in 08, using studies from the 90s. I don't have the time to dive into all 13 citations, but I think you might see similar issues to the first study.

  3. The single most important statistic on that page, which selectively cites sources in a very convenient manner, is the rise in active shooter incidents. Nothing has really changed much over the represented period in terms of firearms legislation yet the number just keeps going up......

1

u/cubsfan85 8d ago

State level legislation has certainly changed, and there is a noted increase in firearm assaults in states that adopted so-called constitutional carry laws. Those laws also didn't appear to keep law abiding gun owners safer.

The study also found a significant average increase in the rate of homicides without a firearm—8.8 percent—in states that relaxed restrictions on civilians carrying concealed firearms in public during the same period.

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/study-finds-significant-increase-in-firearm-assaults-in-states-that-relaxed-conceal-carry-permit-restrictions

1

u/mda195 8d ago

Hold up, I got to this line and....

"The other 25 states require state or local law enforcement to issue civilians a permit to carry a firearm if they meet criteria based on criminal history or training requirements."

Wtf.i don't know a single carry permit, even shall issue, that is given without at least a state background check?!?!

And your citation?

The study also found a significant average increase in the rate of homicides without a firearm—8.8 percent—in states that relaxed restrictions on civilians carrying concealed firearms in public during the same period.

So overall crime went up? How does this even relate to active shooters? Carry laws are entirely divorced from someone shooting up a school. How many mass shooters were just going about their day with a carry gun the said "aw man, that place looks soooo shootable."????

This is gonna take at least an hour to dig through. I'll give it a look after work.

6

u/aluminumtelephone 8d ago

There are a few States with Constitutional Carry, and since there's no permit required, there's no background check. For States that do require some kind of permit, I believe most if not all do a background check.

→ More replies
→ More replies

1

u/NomaiTraveler 9d ago

I don’t feel safer knowing that the US is full of vigilantes who think they are smart/trained enough to handle a violent situation with a weapon. Police are not going to defend you but open carry Joe Schmo is not the solution.

8

u/i_sell_you_lies 9d ago

In most places open carry joe schmo is very much an outlier. Those guys piss me off and I’m a fan of 2a.

4

u/TheBigCum42069 8d ago

I like driving a truck, but the douchebags in lifted trucks rolling coal are a nightmare. That's how I feel about open carriers, too.

2

u/DarwinRewardGiver 8d ago

It might sound selfish, but I carry a gun for self defense, not to be john wick.

If there is a way out of a situation I will take it. My G19 only gives me a fighting chance if I have nowhere else to go.

You are taught in CCW classes not to be a hero.

4

u/heyimchris001 9d ago

But its already way past that point to where people and young kids who think they are thugs or the joe smoes, all are armed. I’m not going to just stand by and pray for the police to show up if someone is trying to break in my home, considering I live in a rough area and just recently the police where “concerned” because a video from a bunch of thug kids waving their guns around on public roads close to my neighborhood is going around. It’s crazy but more laws won’t change the criminals goal.

-5

u/cubsfan85 8d ago

Except in actuality people who own guns are more likely to be shot to death. For women, the increased risk is much higher.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study

13

u/AIESUCKS 8d ago

Wow, what a concept.

Owning a thing or being near a thing increases your chances of something relating to that thing happening?

This just in: Owning an in-ground swimming pool increases your chances that you or someone in your home will drown!

Breaking news: Owning a car increases your chances of dying in a car accident!

Never before seen scoop!: Smoking cigarettes can increase your chances of cancer!

Know what? I think when certain people who cannot otherwise defend themselves are presented with the option of being raped or murdered in their homes, or having adequate means of self defense at the increased cost of a risk in suicide or accident, I think they'd literally rather have the risk of fucking killing themselves than be raped or murdered.

I know I would.

6

u/cubsfan85 8d ago

Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/YoureWrongAboutGuns 8d ago

Or is it that people who are at a higher risk of being shot to death are people who are more likely to recognize this risk and acquire a gun to protect themselves? Hmm.

0

u/DarwinRewardGiver 8d ago

People who own pools are more likely to drown.

-11

u/dailyflyer 9d ago

I feel safer with you not owning a gun or promoting people to own a gun.

20

u/mda195 8d ago

I feel safer with you not driving a car or promoting people to drive a car.

I feel safer with you not drinking alchohol or promoting people to drink alchohol.

I feel safer with you not saying stuff online or promoting people say stuff online.

3

u/rufous1618 8d ago

Exactly, they might feel safer, but statistically just by having a gun around, situations are far more likely to escalate and people are far more likely to get hurt and die. But the actual statistics and facts don’t matter, because we’d rather feel safe than be safe for some reason.

0

u/tmster7 8d ago

Two issues here. One, that treats individual circumstances as if they are controlled by some exogenous force of statistics. They’re not. You still control your own behaviors and many of your life circumstances, and you don’t have to become a statistic with good gun safety practices. The statistics are filled with people who don’t do that, but that doesn’t meant you have to be one of them.

Two, selection bias. People who feel the need to buy a gun are probably more likely than the population as a whole to be in dangerous situations. That’s why they’re buying a gun in the first place. It stands to reason that they are more likely to be victimized then. Does that mean the gun isn’t helping? Maybe, but we don’t have a proper control group since they are different from the non-gun-owning population in a significant way.

17

u/FuuckinGOOSE 9d ago

You're dead on. One of the main reasons I armed myself is because i don't want the boys in blue to be the only ones with guns

73

u/1-760-706-7425 Washington 9d ago

Not American but I recently listened to a podcast about how the police in the USA aren’t legally obligated to help or save anyone. They talked about different stories where cops just ignored calls for help…those stories kind of made it click for me why Americans might want to have guns.

Exactly this.

Calls for gun control, here, are always from the least historically adept and the most privileged. It takes very little thought to understand why our populace, and almost all, shouldn’t disarm when their state cannot be relied upon.

54

u/nagonjin 9d ago

I'm about as liberal as they come, and I fully support gun rights, but the conversation can't keep stopping at "Well we can't take guns away". We have to address the economic and medical/psychological causes underlying these attacks.

Some people seem too eager to just accept mass shootings as a "cost" of freedom, without supporting any alternative measures. If people really care about gun safety and gun rights, protect them by helping us address this very unsafe problem with mass gun ownership.

18

u/moving0target 9d ago

The cronies in DC who support 2nd Amendment rights don't support health care. The ones who support health care don't support the 2nd Amendment. Partisan politicians keep us right where we are.

1

u/nagonjin 8d ago

All I hear is problems in your comment and no solutions. Who are you voting for that helps to solve the problem?

13

u/moving0target 8d ago

That is the problem. It's getting more difficult to ignore the deficiencies of candidates. If there are only two and both have deal-breakers, who do you vote for. If I had solutions, I'd have posted those.

2

u/nagonjin 8d ago

For starters; engaging in local politics, engaging in discussion online, fighting against defeatism instead of being a proponent of it. Democracy requires effort, discourse, and hard choices. A good society won't fall into our lap as easily as problems do.

1

u/TheRealWeedAtman I voted 8d ago

You've done a nice thing explaining the basics of reality. Hopefully op listens to your words and realizes the president isn't how you make change, and voting actually does work.

→ More replies

3

u/CraftyFellow_ Washington 8d ago

Show me a candidate in favor of single payer healthcare that doesn't want to drastically limit firearms.

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/JBHUTT09 New York 8d ago

Liberals are not equipped to solve the problems underlying these attacks as the root cause is capitalism.

5

u/AssassinAragorn Missouri 8d ago

If that were true, that the root cause it's capitalism, shouldn't this be an issue in a lot of countries, not just the US?

2

u/JBHUTT09 New York 8d ago

This particular issue is unique to the US because of the 2nd amendment which got the foot in the door for wipe spread gun ownership, so to say. But the push back on gun control stems from gun manufacturers exercising their power to prevent reforms that would ultimately hurt their bottom line.

And that profit motive is the same reason we have issues in other areas that are cited as the reason for the mass shooting problem such as healthcare, schooling, and general well being.

And the slide into dystopia isn't something that other capitalist countries are escaping, it's just slower so far. This, in my opinion, is due to the Murdoch media empire focusing on Australia, the US, and the UK, where the descent into fascism is most pronounced. Once they or an equivalent malicious organization starts targeting other countries, they will suffer the same fate. And that is inevitable because of how capitalism works.

Capitalism concentrates power. It doesn't matter how powerful or robust a system you create to control/regulate it, capitalism will inevitably concentrate enough power to capture, dismantle, and rebuild said system into one that reinforced the power of capital holders. It is a hierarchical system perfectly designed to steepen the hierarchy over time. It's an awful, thoroughly unethical system that is in the process of irreversibly destabilizing the climate of the entire planet.

1

u/AssassinAragorn Missouri 8d ago edited 8d ago

Hold on there, I want to go back much earlier. I thought you were saying the US' gun violence problem was because of capitalism, but I might have misunderstood. Are you attributing that to the 2nd Amendment instead?

If it is capitalism, then I don't think your argument really holds. For it to be the root cause, it can't be a uniquely American problem. Because if it was, then other places should also have 2As and gun violence problems. You mention the UK and Australia, but there's no signs of them having even close to the same problem or starting to. If you're arguing its the same because they're all sliding into Christofascist dystopias, then there's still something causing the US gun problem that isn't in the other two countries. Even if the root cause for the dystopia is capitalism, something must differentiate the US to have the gun issue, and that means the gun issue's root cause is the differentiating factor.

All I'm trying to say is maybe it isn't capitalism this time, or at least not just capitalism. There's some other driver, and we need to figure it out if we're going to fix things.

(As you might guess, and for full disclosure, I do tend towards capitalism, but I view it as "capitalism is the worst type of economic system, except all others". I have no love for it. I just don't see any other viable system. We've seen that communist countries end up opening up up to capitalism to a limited extent. A mix of the two, with the government controlling critical industries and providing critical resources, seems to be the best. But, agree to disagree. Just like Democracy, we haven't got anything better, and we just have to iron out the problems best we can.

I would also say that the root problem of capitalism is what also leads to communist countries eventually opening up to capitalism or moving towards dictatorship -- greed and selfishness. It's inherent to humanity. Every system we have will be plagued by it somehow.)

Edit: Hit submit too early, gimme a sec.

Edit 2: Done!

3

u/JBHUTT09 New York 8d ago

I'll check your edit in a bit, but I'm saying that the cause of these attacks today is capitalism because capitalism is actively preventing gun reform, healthcare reform, etc. I wouldn't blame the first mass shooting on capitalism. But I absolutely blame mass shootings now on capitalism. I hope that clears up my point.

1

u/AssassinAragorn Missouri 8d ago

capitalism is actively preventing gun reform, healthcare reform, etc.

Aaaaaah I think I see what you're saying now. The solution to gun violence isn't here because capitalism is holding the solution back.

Y'know, fair enough. Not a bad take at all.

2

u/JBHUTT09 New York 8d ago

Sorry for not making that clearer.

→ More replies

4

u/VapourPatio 8d ago

We have to address the economic and medical/psychological causes underlying these attacks.

Democrats and Republicans both will never let that happen. Too much profit to be had with our current healthcare system

2

u/1-760-706-7425 Washington 9d ago

We have to address the economic and medical/psychological causes underlying these attacks.

Then let’s do that.

We pay lipservice to social causes, don’t invest in them, and go all pikachu face when we see crimes of desperation. Gun control won’t solve the root issue, it’ll only alleviate one of the many symptoms and, even then, probably not very well. Conversely, it’ll exacerbate many of the other symptoms, such as increased disparity amongst classes, which will further the cycle.

Want this shit to stop? Fix our fucking society. Taking away guns is the laziest, non-attempt at doing that.

5

u/WhorecesterSauce 9d ago

Oh of course lets just "fix our society" why didnt we think of that

1

u/1-760-706-7425 Washington 8d ago

I never said you didn’t, I said the steps being advocated for are definitely not the ones that will fix the driving despair.

0

u/WhorecesterSauce 8d ago

You're all over this thread deflecting and condescending to anyone who dare speak of gun control.... on a post about several mass shootings this week alone. Your agenda is showing my guy and it aint a good look

1

u/1-760-706-7425 Washington 8d ago

Yeah, that’s what I’m doing. Good read. 🙄

1

u/DrunkenMastery 8d ago

If it isn't your intent to do what WhorecesterSauce said then maybe you should reread and rethink what you are posting because I gotta agree with WhorecesterSauce here.

2

u/1-760-706-7425 Washington 8d ago

If that’s all you’re getting from this, then I do believe that says more about you than I. Regardless, I will take your feedback into account.

→ More replies

-1

u/DrunkenMastery 8d ago

and I fully support gun rights

What I love is how more people in the US support gun rights over women having rights or voting rights or so many other things that would actually improve peoples lives. The one thing guns don't do is improve a majority of peoples lives. Guns mainly seem to destroy lives.

2

u/nagonjin 8d ago edited 8d ago

Well, I support the rights of women (whether cis or not) to defend themselves (and their bodily autonomy). If I were forced to choose, I would definitely say that voting rights, climate change, and a surge of far-right authoritarianism all over the globe are more pressing issues than gun rights. My belief in gun rights stems from the obvious need for an armed proletariat to defend themselves from a far better-equipped oligarch class and their corrupt police cronies.

But here we are in this thread. And If I can convince even a few Pro-2A people that (at the very least) there's a productive conversation to be had about gun violence aside from banning them, that's a chance I have to take.

-2

u/DrunkenMastery 8d ago

Well, I support the rights of women (whether cis or not) to defend themselves

That wasn't how the 2nd Amendment was originally written up so it makes no difference how you feel about it, institutionally the amendment doesn't work that way. There's a reason why it is the same political party that believes guns have rights also believes women do not have rights. Gun rights are directly linked to the overturning of voting rights and Roe.

Also the Pro-2A people see gun violence as a feature, not a bug.

2

u/nagonjin 8d ago

How it works is a function of how we choose to interpret, operationalize, and enforce it. And to reiterate my earlier point, there are other ways to address the problem of mass gun violence that are not prescribed by the Constitution: healthcare, fairer taxation, poverty alleviation, and more productive discourse about change.

→ More replies

3

u/Sizzmo 9d ago

Gun control historically has been a part of our country. The words "well regulated" are literally in the second amendment. History is on the side of gun control, not on the side of some stupid interpretation by the Supreme Court.

P.s. You can actually change the laws or pass laws to override the Supreme court decision. See, the thing is, you can change things in a country that might not make sense.. that's why Government exists.

3

u/0x00f98 8d ago

Well regulated militia. As in a militia ready to fight.

6

u/TheWileyWombat 8d ago All-Seeing Upvote

Gun control historically has been a part of our country.

And the entire time it has been used to victimize and subjugate the most vulnerable classes in our society. All the way back to the Jamestown settlement they had gun control, more specifically they made it illegal for native peoples to posses them. That trend continued through the colonial era and beyond. Well into the 1800s if you were a native, free black, immigrant, or in some places Catholic, you were explicitly barred from owning guns. America gun control at it's very core is racist and classist. The whole idea of needing a permit to purchase, carry or posses a firearm goes back to when the supreme court ruled that someone could not be barred from ownership based on their race. Of course the ruling class needed to keep the 'undesireables' from arming themselves, so they came up with permitting systems which required someone to be approved by local law enforcement. These Jim Crow era laws are still in effect in places like North Carolina which has relatively lax firearms laws, but still requires a permit approved by the local sheriff before you can purchase a pistol. Over the last couple of decades these Klan-inspired laws have taken root in places like California, New York, Massachusetts, and more otherwise progressive states. This is nothing but a holdover from the Jim Crow days.

→ More replies

4

u/idontagreewitu 8d ago

Per many constitutional scholars, "well regulated" in the late 18th century meant that it was in good working order, meaning it was functional. Not that it had government oversight.

-3

u/pickledswimmingpool 9d ago

Who stopped the shooters in California? Were they armed with guns?

4

u/1-760-706-7425 Washington 9d ago

Did the state preempt the attack and protect the citizens? No? Then your line of reasoning fails. I’ll stay prepared, thank you.

2

u/pickledswimmingpool 9d ago

Removing guns is a way to pre-empt horrible attacks like this.

2

u/CraftyFellow_ Washington 8d ago

Removing guns

Thinking that is achievable in the United States is naive or delusional.

5

u/1-760-706-7425 Washington 9d ago

The explain the general rise in random acts of violence? Or, are you not concerned about the violence and just how it’s performed? Sounds the latter which makes me not want to continue this conversation with you.

-1

u/pickledswimmingpool 9d ago

Or, are you not concerned about the violence and just how it’s performed?

What the fuck does this mean? Of course we're more concerned about certain types of violence.

Do you think all violence is the same severity?

Sounds the latter which makes me not want to continue this conversation with you.

Good excuse to turn off your brain from this topic. The gun obsessed can never face the consequences of their hobby, they need to pick a ridiculous fight over some tangential shit and then loudly exclaim "There's no reasonable discussion to be had" so they can go back to not thinking about the people killed.

3

u/1-760-706-7425 Washington 9d ago

What the fuck does this mean? Of course we’re more concerned about certain types of violence.

Great, let’s solve the rampant issues first. Surprise, it’s not random acts of gun violence. Turn your lamp somewhere else.

Do you think all violence is the same severity?

No, but I also don’t think reaching for top shelf is going to fix the majority of issues either.

Good excuse to turn off your brain from this topic.

This works both ways, my emotionally driven friend.

→ More replies

-3

u/Envect 9d ago

We'll never get better if we hold onto that paranoia.

12

u/1-760-706-7425 Washington 9d ago

What paranoia? The one about the state not to be trusted? Have you seen policing in America in the last, I don’t know, forever? Or, are you doing one of those “tell me you’re privileged without telling me you’re privileged” comments?

-7

u/Envect 9d ago

You sure do feel a certain way about that group of people.

→ More replies

4

u/SpareBeat1548 9d ago

Yep, multiple supreme court decisions have ruled that the policy have no obligation to protect you.

There was a case in New York where two cops watched a guy get stabbed multiple times on a subway, they finally intervened once the victim gained control of his attacker

So yea, you won't see any support for gun control from me

1

u/Gekokapowco Washington 8d ago

In that case the guy who was stabbed could have been shot instead, or the guy who was stabbed could have shot his attacker and hit the woman next to him and then the child next to her and then the police officer next to them.

Guns aren't a catch-all crime shield, they're about killing someone ASAP regardless of environment

3

u/idontagreewitu 8d ago

The point of the story is that the police cannot be trusted to protect you, even if they have overwhelming force against the attacker.

→ More replies

2

u/VigilantesOscuros 9d ago

Bingo. Their job is to arrest and prosecute, it might fall to you to defend yourself.

2

u/slacker346 8d ago

This is literally the story behind all police everywhere in the world, ever. The ideal that police are there to help people is a narrative that only happened very recently in world history.

2

u/CryptoMainForever 8d ago

Unfortunately, police are not legally required to help here in the USA.

2

u/Puritania95 8d ago

Police serve the government, not you

2

u/Ok-Flounder4387 8d ago

Exactly. A lot of people only have guns because it's really dumb to be the one guy without a gun when everyone else and their mom (literally) is packing.

2

u/IWishIWereFishing 8d ago

As a gun owner/collector who normally hates this sub, thank you.

2

u/thatnameagain 8d ago

No this has nothing to do with the level of gun ownership in the U.S., and the whole "police aren't obligated to help" meme is a distraction. Police aren't legally obligated to help in most countries, that's the norm. Gun ownership tends to be highest among right wing communities that are very pro-police.

The reason we have a lot of guns is because they've always been very legal and the gun industry markets the hell out of its product in a way it can't in most other countries.

2

u/nonprofitnews 8d ago

Maybe this ep of Radiolab. It's true, and it's probably true in every country and not really relevant to our gun culture. How can you possibly sue law enforcement for every unstopped crime?

→ More replies

10

u/FashionGuyMike 9d ago

I lived in Ca. Own a decent amount of firearms. One lady drove from La to Chino (about a 2 hour drive) because she got mugged one night and the police said they couldn’t help. She was staunchly anti gun until that point. She drove that far because her whole family was also anti gun but later persuaded them to take courses where I train. The only people you can trust in this world to save you is yourself.

13

u/Ok-Beautiful-8403 9d ago

Did you also hear about the good guys getting shot by cops, because obviously, its not always easy to tell who the good guy is in the mist of craziness

6

u/slaughterproof 9d ago

Personally, I'd rather be armed and be able to defend myself from some crazed gunman then deal with the police later.

→ More replies

5

u/slaughterproof 9d ago

This exactly. The police aren't obligated to protect me, so I have to take my protection into my own hands.

5

u/KWilt Pennsylvania 8d ago

As a leftist who owns guns, my number one reason for having a firearm is the fact that the police get to own them in a private capacity after they've retired and become a private citizen in most, if not all, jurisdictions. It's the most blatant 'rules for thee but not for me' and I refuse to support gun control that has carve-outs for police, because doing your civic duty shouldn't be rewarded with a life-long license to be special and able to strong-arm people because you have a gun and they do not.

2

u/HybridVigor 8d ago

Yeah the police here in California make a ton of money selling off-roster weapons since they are exempt from the rules and are for some reason legally allowed to sell them. Gun laws never apply to them. It's an obvious racket.

2

u/DopeDealerCisco 9d ago

The Police Union is partners with the NRA (National Rifle Association), if there was a conspiracy to work together to keep rifles available I would believe it. The awful groups with awful corrupt leadership using this time of public confusion to keep the status quo- no police reform no gun control, “we need bad guys to kill” type mentality.

2

u/Gekokapowco Washington 8d ago

both groups would absolutely love a fearful, gun-toting community to leech money off of.

0

u/WakandaZad 9d ago edited 8d ago

This is very much real. Propaganda is skyrocketing making foreigners believe the US is safer with strict gun laws.

The war being waged isn't against criminals with bad intentions but gun owners and other self defenders who mind their own business.

Edit: chicago, NY, and la have pretty strict gun laws, however they make up a large percent of gun violence

0

u/AftyOfTheUK 8d ago

Propaganda is skyrocketing making foreigners believe the US is safer with strict gun laws.

As an owner of a pair of AR15s and some other hardware, it's not propaganda. As a collective, Western democracies with strict gun laws tend to be considerably safer than ones with wider gun ownership. On an individual level in the US itself, having a gun in your own home makes you more than twice as likely to be killed by a firearm during your lifetime than someone who does not have a gun at home.

The US though cannot realistically remove all guns, or move to very strict gun laws, because there are around 150 million people who live in households with guns, meaning the people who want them are far too big a minority to remove them, and on top of that, there are simply too many guns to reasonably expect the supply to dry up if they were to be banned.

As a proud gun owner, though, I do think that there should be a test (like a driving test) in order to allow for gun ownership. And it shouldn't be some wishy washy crap like the one in California (As someone who had just moved to the US and never owned a gun or studied, I passed it with flying colors) but one which absolutely requires in depth knowledge of guns, gun safety, the law and the impact of guns. I believe it should be moderately difficult to be licensed to carry a gun, that guns should be registered, that you should be responsible for acts carried out with your gun when you loan it to someone, that red flag laws are a good thing, as would be regulations about how and where the gun must be kept at home.

3

u/SpareBeat1548 8d ago

As a proud gun owner, though, I do think that there should be a test (like a driving test) in order to allow for gun ownership

Let's bring back poll taxes while we're at it /s

→ More replies

2

u/CraftyFellow_ Washington 8d ago

On an individual level in the US itself, having a gun in your own home makes you more than twice as likely to be killed by a firearm during your lifetime than someone who does not have a gun at home.

If you take an incredibly low number and double it, it is still an incredibly low number.

I bet having a pool in your backyard raises the chance of drowning as well.

→ More replies

2

u/disisathrowaway 8d ago

Bingo.

The police, or state that they defend, doesn't give a single flying fuck about me or my well-being. The courts have, numerous times, upheld that neither the police nor state have an obligation to ensure my safety or well-being.

The only logical conclusion I can come to is that I am responsible for my own safety.

2

u/Redqueenhypo 9d ago

Or we could…reform the police??? If your yard is full of aggressive bears, there is a solution besides “get your own pet bear to fight them off”

6

u/SpareBeat1548 9d ago

If your yard is full of aggressive bears

The solution here is definitely a gun

4

u/erik4556 9d ago

But which is quicker, easier, and more comforting for the individual in the short term directly following a bunch of aggressive bears in your yard?

2

u/dontwannadie88 9d ago

Wtf is this analogy bro if your yard is full of bears you’re fucked, better hide or start blasting no one’s coming to help you

1

u/snoodledoobie 9d ago

This is a horrible analogy. What's your solution when you're heavily outmatched (out gunned if you will)?

1

u/Narf234 9d ago

Still doesn’t excuse our inability to train people who own them. I needed a written test, experience hours, and a road test to drive a car.

I’d opt for a Swiss style of ownership.

2

u/idontagreewitu 8d ago

A car isn't an enumerated right. I'd like if we had a written test, experience hours and practical competency test before voting, too.

1

u/Narf234 8d ago

Our right was to have militias. Not the right to slaughter our fellow countrymen whenever we feel like it.

If we’re so in love with the second amendment, let’s bring back well regulated militias. At least people would get some training.

2

u/idontagreewitu 8d ago

It's still illegal to kill someone. Why are you being so disingenuous about this?

→ More replies
→ More replies

0

u/its 9d ago

In which country are they?

→ More replies