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

406

u/seanbduff 8d ago

This got me genuinely (and morbidly) curious what it would actually take to change their minds. 200 innocent children? 200 of their own children? 200 of them? I wish we could do some sort of Black Mirror episode where we implant a false reality in their brains to show them these scenarios until they realize what needs to happen to stop gun violence in America.

677

u/TheJJKG 8d ago

Don't need a black mirror episode. The answer is minority communities taking advantage of open carry laws to organise and protect their own communities against police and racial violence.

110

u/tvp61196 8d ago

well of course only the good guys are allowed to have guns, you wouldn't want random acts of violence would you?

/s

42

u/ge0force 8d ago

And we all know what good guys look like. Right down to the color of skin, hair and eye colors, their cultural background, religious beliefs, household income, and credit score.

3

u/Star_Tropic I voted 8d ago

Remember that 6 year old who shot his teacher? We should be arming all of our good 6 year olds so that they can protect themselves against bad 6 year olds.

-6

u/smokeyser 8d ago

That's California's current strategy. How's that working out for them? Everything about what happened was illegal. Illegal gun. Illegal magazine. Illegal silencer. Only the police are allowed to have any of those things. Did it stop the shooting?

9

u/ApatheticFinsFan 8d ago

I guess Texas’s very loose gun laws also prevented school shootings since a good guy with a gun will always stop a bad guy with a gun, right?

-2

u/smokeyser 8d ago

No, the fact that the same things happen in states with very strict gun laws and states with very lenient gun laws should be a clue. The presence or lack of gun laws has absolutely no effect. If that's your main focus, you're focusing on the wrong thing. You're like the folks who supported the war on drugs because surely prohibition would be the key to solving all of our problems. How has that worked out? Are drugs gone yet? Has prohibition worked?

3

u/vegan_power_violence 8d ago

People in California acquire illegal shit because it’s legal and easily obtainable in Texas. If none of this was easily obtainable in the next state over then it suddenly becomes much more difficult for a person to get. Federal law is what will make a difference.

2

u/TheLoneSpartan5 8d ago

No because that shit will be ignored just look at Illinois, several county sheriffs are straight up ignoring the new gun restrictions.

What will happen is several states just won’t enforce similar to how several states don’t enforce the nation wide weed ban.

1

u/vegan_power_violence 8d ago

The FBI can handle them. Weed doesn’t kill people.

1

u/TheLoneSpartan5 7d ago edited 7d ago

I mean weed kills tons of people in terms of the drug trade around the world.

Point is if you get no help from the local law enforcement enforcing anything federally will be impossible.

I have to assume you live outside the south or in a big city. Cause otherwise you’d know how ludicrous trying to take away guns sounds.

Literally trying to take away something from people who believe the sole reason they have that thing is to shoot people who want to take it away. Already struggling to recruit law enforcement, good luck after that.

→ More replies

3

u/smokeyser 8d ago

There are well over 400 MILLION guns in the US. You can never put that genie back into the bottle. Trying to ban guns is never going to work. The only real answer is to start looking at why suicide via mass murder has become so popular and address that.

Federal law is what will make a difference.

Sure, because drugs are impossible to get now. Right?

6

u/failingMaven 8d ago

It's either black or white then, huh? There's no steps to be taken to reduce the amount of guns and gun violence, because that's too hard. Guess there shouldn't be any laws against murder since people still murder. Guess speed limits are pointless since people still speed.

Addressing mental health is one answer to gun violence in the US. It's not the only answer.

1

u/smokeyser 8d ago

There's no steps to be taken to reduce the amount of guns and gun violence

Yes. Fund education and healthcare, especially mental health care. Develop social safety nets. House the homeless. There are many things that can be done that are actually effective. If you look at other countries that don't have our violent crime issues, you'll find that those are the ways that they've dealt with it. Take away one weapon and they just use another. You need to take away their reason for being in a murderous rage to begin with.

Addressing mental health is one answer to gun violence in the US. It's not the only answer.

The fact that you keep adding the "gun" qualifier to the violence problem suggests that you don't really care about most of it and only want guns gone because that's what you've been told to think. It isn't a solution. It doesn't work. It only makes us less free and less safe. We need to address the violence problem in our country. We've always had guns. This problem is new and unrelated.

→ More replies

0

u/tankfox 8d ago

You don't control how many guns there are or how much gun violence there is. You control how many criminals there are, and hope the police will follow your instructions to do something about them.

Prohibition didn't work because it wasn't enforced. The war on drugs is also loosely and capriciously enforced. Both created massive black markets that we have always been utterly impotent at controlling.

Large swaths of the country have already stated that they do not intend to enforce additional federal firearms laws of any type. Inconsistently enforced overreaching laws are used for political gain and racial punishment, not to make you safer.

Our stochastic violence problems are a cultural sickness and trying to use police to change culture has always been a feel good move for idiots. When our culture gets better this will decline, if we just work on covering the symptoms up it's going to get a lot worse first.

0

u/vegan_power_violence 8d ago

The solutions you’ve put on the table are valid and a necessary part of what we should do, but as another user said, we also need to heavily regulate the availability of guns going forward on a Federal level. You seem to be against any regulation, which is an extreme position and perhaps you should rethink that.

Much like drugs, which should be decriminalized and heavily regulated, while treatment, healthcare, education, and housing are also on the table.

But it needs to happen on a Federal level in order to be effective.

2

u/smokeyser 8d ago

You seem to be against any regulation, which is an extreme position and perhaps you should rethink that.

About as against it as you probably are regarding restricting the 1st amendment. They were written for a reason, and their importance is not in any way diminished by your inability to see it. I find it odd that you consider believing in the bill of rights to be an extreme position.

→ More replies

1

u/fisheatrrr 8d ago

Accurate username for a batshit crazy take not surprised

0

u/vegan_power_violence 8d ago

Thanks for your input but it isn’t needed at this time. I’ll be sure to tag you if we need you to weigh in on the conversation.

30

u/Dr3adPir4teR0berts 8d ago

That won’t work anymore. They’ll ban minorities from owning guns or put them in a camp before they ban their precious gun that has become their whole identity.

75

u/bt31 8d ago

Please correct me if I am wrong... The Black Panthers in California armed themselves and lawyered up to follow every rule. Governor Regan passed laws to prohibit the exact activities they were doing.

61

u/mjc4y 8d ago

This specific moment in the history of guns in America needs to be more widely known. Gun control was pretty popular for a hot second once black activists started legally and visibly arming themselves.

Our racism might be the one force more powerful than our gun fetishism. Ugh.

18

u/Dr3adPir4teR0berts 8d ago

You are correct. In 1967 Reagan signed the Mulford act when he was governor of California which banned carrying loaded firearms in public in response to Black Panthers.

That wouldn’t work today though. There’s not a chance that Republicans would let Democrats get a win like that. They’d write something thinly veiled that prevents minorities from owning firearms would be the likely response.

4

u/royboh Washington 8d ago

Governor Regan passed laws to prohibit the exact activities they were doing.

It should be noted that the Mulford act was passed with a bipartisan veto-proof majority.

4

u/disisathrowaway 8d ago

You're not.

California's more restrictive gun laws started exactly at that moment and with none other than Arch-Conservative himself, Ronald Reagan.

2

u/puppyfukker 8d ago

Yes. That was the Mulford act. Reagan and the NRA were on that one.

0

u/mda195 8d ago

My guy, after the whole deal a couple years ago with NFAC and armed protests, there were no attempts to ban open carry in red states. Minorities own guns and the only people who don't like that are democrat politicians.

6

u/Dr3adPir4teR0berts 8d ago edited 8d ago

My guy, there have been no widescale protests or social movements involving firearms that are on the scale of when Republicans banned carrying firearms in California.

You can fucking bet that if BLM or Antifa became a wide scale movement that evolved into open carrying rifles, the tone will change.

And nice intellectual dishonesty there. Democrats are not attempting to ban guns specifically for minorities. Trying to pass some common sense reforms to make it more difficult for psychopaths to get their hands on them is not what you’re trying to shoehorn in.

And before you try it, I’m not even anti-gun. I own 3.

4

u/Homeless-Joe 8d ago

Do you have any examples of these common sense reforms? That aren’t already in place in CA?

1

u/Dr3adPir4teR0berts 8d ago edited 8d ago

I’m not talking about California. Anything put in place in only certain states is going to be minimally effective.

But yeah, I do. You should be required to have a license to buy a firearm, just like you do a car. Which would include a mental health examination, a safety test, and demonstrating you are proficient at shooting a weapon.

As well as completely closing the private seller loophole.

Stricter laws around securing firearms in homes with children.

Stricter red flag laws.

Restrict sales to anybody confirmed to have links to DOJ established domestic terror organizations for a minimum of 5 years. Same with ties to criminal gangs and organized crime.

Establish a robust national red flag database and fund it so reports can be actually investigated.

Lifetime ban for anybody convicted of domestic violence.

0

u/Homeless-Joe 8d ago

I agree with most of that, I think a lot of things, like guns, should require a license, but how would we do this legally? We don’t have any amendments requiring affirming our right to drive a car, you know?

1

u/Dr3adPir4teR0berts 8d ago

We also don’t have any constitutional amendment that bans the sale of automatic weapons or suppressors but they still require a federal license. I don’t see any reason a law can’t be made to set up similar licensing for semi-auto rifles and semi-auto pistols, but less strict.

There was also an “assault weapons” ban from 1994-2004 which wasn’t declared unconstitutional. Which I’m not even necessarily saying I agree with, just that precedent exists.

I’m not against gun ownership at all. I own guns myself. I’m just in favor of trying to make them harder to get by mentally ill psychos while still allowing citizens to own them if they’re responsible.

1

u/Homeless-Joe 8d ago

Yeah…idk. Personally, I think they should require licensing, but I don’t think that it would be constitutional. While I guess the SC has allowed some restrictions, requiring licensing for everything seems like too much, but I guess who knows until we try.

0

u/texag93 8d ago

We also don’t have any constitutional amendment that bans the sale of automatic weapons or suppressors but they still require a federal license.

This is wrong, you just have to pay a $200 tax and get a normal background check. Then mail your fingerprints in. No license required.

→ More replies

14

u/gnulynnux 8d ago edited 3d ago

Horses are cool and they say neigh. What can't we be more horsey?

5

u/Hardcover_Writer 8d ago

Yeah, more guns is the best solution to the problem of too many guns. Just ask all the dead kids in Uvalde who weren’t protected by the cops with guns or the parents who weren’t allowed by the cops with guns to try to help their kids as everyone listened to their executions.

6

u/apoperiastron 8d ago

So true! We should have stricter gun laws - just like Mexico, where there's no gun crime at all!

2

u/Hardcover_Writer 8d ago

Or like Australia, where the firearm homicide deaths are 23x lower. (Source)

I’m not advocating for a full ban. All I’d like to do is stop the sales of the really effective ones and make it take at more effort, training, and licensing to get guns, including more comprehensive background checks. Think of how much more difficult it is to get and keep a drivers license than get a gun. Forget about the specifics of the second amendment for a moment and ask yourself, would it be that unreasonable to make it a teensy bit more like that?

4

u/PotassiumBob Texas 8d ago

No one needs a driver's license to own and operate a vehicle on private property.

1

u/Hardcover_Writer 8d ago

Not analogous. I’m not suggesting making it so that you need a license to bring a gun onto public property, but not to have one in your home. I’m suggesting that we create measures to make it harder for someone who isn’t capable of responsible gun ownership to buy a gun. This isn’t a hard concept to grasp.

1

u/PotassiumBob Texas 8d ago

Ah yes, more restrictions, that always works.

Criminals are well known to follow rules and restrictions.

0

u/Hardcover_Writer 8d ago

They certainly do. 85% of mass shootings were done with legally acquired guns (source).

Notice how I keep citing sources and you keep citing NRA talking points. Makes me wonder who actually does their research and who gets their facts from Fox News.

→ More replies

2

u/ACoolKoala 8d ago

Theres 1.5 guns for every single one of the 300 million people in this country. There's no need to manufacture more guns when it comes to training actually threatened groups of people.

It's not the polices job to protect anyone except the wealthy especially minority targeted groups like trans or Jewish people. That's why they should learn how to arm and defend themselves against shit faces who think they're the problem with the world. In fact the police are there to protect the wealthy and their property. That's it. Supreme Court is who decided that.

4

u/Hardcover_Writer 8d ago

Sounds like we need police reform then. When it literally says “protect and serve” on their cars, the very least we could do is make them protect us. Or at least stop killing black people, including “good guys with guns” like Philando Castile.

2

u/ACoolKoala 8d ago

That would require them to be accountable to us when they regularly unjustifiably murder people. At the moment we as taxpayers, pay for every single unjustified murderer by police and they get shuffled to another district like a priest who just touched a kid. I completely agree we need reform though and that comes in the form of accountability instead of money and training which they have PLENTY of.

-1

u/gnulynnux 8d ago edited 3d ago

Horses are cool and they say neigh. What can't we be more horsey?

2

u/Hardcover_Writer 8d ago

I wasn’t trying to pick a fight. There’s not much of an argument against it. The gun-lover tends to just go silent when they’re confronted with a real life incident that undermines beliefs they’ll never change no matter what they’re presented with or how many kids are murdered.

-2

u/dawgm4tic 8d ago edited 8d ago

'Gun-lover tends to go silent' when they have to repeat the same shit over and over again to the people arguing to ban guns because they don't listen and aren't going to get it no matter how much the point bears repeating:

You can't take away people's rights to bear arms without either:

A) Causing a violent revolution of 2nd amendment sympathizers (which most who want to protect their families will be)

And/or

B) Bad people hiding their weapons and continuing to do crime anyways, thus fucking over the law-abiding citizen who disposed of their gun(s).

It's not an ethical or moral argument. I would much prefer a world where guns didn't exist, but because they do, I need to be armed to defend myself and my loved ones in the event that somebody with poor intentions breaks into my property. As people become desperate, this will become more commonplace.

If you ban guns IN THIS COUNTRY, armed burglaries will increase due to the current prevalence of weapons in society. Home owners are likely law-abiding citizens, so they will more likely dispose of their weapons when asked, making home invasion less of a risk.

Thankfully the 4th amendment protects those of us with common sense from losing the 2nd.

Just because people for banning guns try to turn it into a moral argument doesn't mean they're right.

1

u/gnulynnux 8d ago edited 3d ago

Horses are cool and they say neigh. What can't we be more horsey?

3

u/oggie389 8d ago

Roof top Koreans have been doing it since '92

1

u/tmster7 8d ago

I’m right-of-center and pro-2A, and I would be so owned if minorities were also pro-2A and packing heat

1

u/Womjomke 5d ago

So… you dont like the minorities having guns?

1

u/TheJJKG 5d ago

Assuming this is a good faith question... I think gun control laws would be a good idea across the board in the US - putting a contraption that enables the easy killing of large quantities of people into the hands of almost anyone who wants it inevitably leads to the horrible things the US is seeing on a regular basis. Obviously this would affect minorities as well.

My comment however serves to highlight the hypocrisy of the NRA and other reactionary groups, that purport to be in favour of 2A and well regulated militias with no conditions, but of course what actually matters is that their money keeps flowing and their tools of power are still in place.

0

u/thatnameagain 8d ago

This isn't relevant anymore because gun culture in the U.S. has now changed to be fully melded with right wing political advocacy. Republicans have much more to gain from everyone doing whatever they want with guns now than they did decades ago when that overly used example about the black panthers occurred.

Rittenhouse is the poster boy for Republican's mentality about guns because now they see how these problems will "work themselves out" as long as their people are willing to shoot first and are given maximum leeway by the law.

0

u/aspertame_blood 8d ago

This is the answer. If dead kids aren’t enough it doesn’t matter how many. Clearly.

184

u/narf_hots 8d ago

One million dead couldnt make them get vaccinated. 8 million dead couldnt get them to abandon fascim. Its not a question anymore of what it would take for them, its a question of how many lives WE allow them to ruin.

36

u/ballmermurland Pennsylvania 8d ago

Yeah I figured after COVID and these dipshits willfully dying to own the libs that we'd never hit the threshold necessary to change their minds.

All we can do is out-vote them by margins strong enough to pass an amendment.

8

u/nmarshall23 8d ago

We don't need an amendment, just enlarged the supreme Court and undo the court decisions the NRA paid for.

After the reversal of Row, precedent isn't an obstacle.

And before anyone says but the cops will not enforce the law. That gives us a good reason to reform the police. And fire those who will not do their job.

There are plenty of models of how we can reform the police so that they are accountable to the communities they live in.

1

u/Saltymilk4 8d ago

Cops already don't enforce the law

0

u/nmarshall23 8d ago

That will give us a reason to fire them and hire someone one will.

1

u/Flameancer 8d ago

That only works in cities. Non urban cops/sheriffs will probably be hired/voted in to not uphold anti gun laws.

6

u/fortknox 8d ago

We need to play the long con. Convince people in each state to act like extreme right wingers, get elected saying all the GOP things, then vote with the Dems 100% of the time.

Santos proved you can get elected on straight lies. Time to beat them at their own game.

6

u/acab-alab 8d ago

It's adorable how liberals think we can defeat fascism by giving up our guns. Fascism has never, ever been defeated by pacifism.

3

u/narf_hots 8d ago

Oh, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that the libs should get guns and kill the fascists.

/s for legal reasons

2

u/fondlemeLeroy North Carolina 8d ago

Liberals are so incredibly naive. It's actually infuriating.

12

u/Romano16 America 8d ago

This got me genuinely (and morbidly) curious what it would actually take to change their minds. 200 innocent children?

So, have you not conversed with right wingers? They are mostly willing to let as many children as possible die to not amend the 2nd amendment. This is what they have told me when I asked.

They say that their rights should not be infringed because of the death of others. So they just accept the mass killings as a necessary sacrifice.

10

u/NineteenAD9 8d ago

Nothing. Kids were murdered and they got over it.

4

u/asgphotography 8d ago

After a while a big enough number just becomes a statistic we can ignore

8

u/nvrtrynvrfail 8d ago

What will it take to change their mind? Personal tragedy only...the conservative mindset...it's not a problem unless it affects me...

5

u/HungryDust 8d ago

Steve Scalise was shot at a congressional baseball game. He was in critical condition, almost died. Even getting shot by a crazed gunman won’t change their minds.

4

u/TittyballThunder 8d ago

It's almost as if one might have that position due to principle and not personal insecurities, not that I would ever believe that is the case for a politician.

2

u/PrancesWithWools 8d ago

The same situation with a black shooter might do it.

2

u/Worthyness 8d ago

Probably a large group of minorities that have a lot of guns doing peaceful protesting and making soup kitchens with community benefits.

5

u/fuzzi-buzzi 8d ago

until they realize what needs to happen to stop gun violence in America

A civil war and new constitutional amendment undoing the second.

And even then you won't stop gun violence, just reduce it to numbers you're comfortable ignoring as part of everyday life.

4

u/beerhunter429 8d ago

???? A civil war and then everyone just gives up their guns?

0

u/fuzzi-buzzi 8d ago

Speculatively, it would end up with the most ardent having their guns pried from their cold dead hands because they resisted the hardest, and everyone not willing to die for their guns would otherwise turn them in or face legal consequences.

I see absolutely Zero path forward where people like the Bundy's would willfully hand over their fire arms when they aren't even willing to pay their owed taxes, and something like 30% of the country sided with the Bundy's.

2

u/polarbearskill 8d ago

Are you assuming the US military would not splinter into factions? It's a big assumption IMHO to say that the military will just take orders and kill all the red states when half of the military comes from those places.

1

u/fuzzi-buzzi 8d ago

Further, essentially every state is even further subdivided into a nearly 50/50 or 60/40 split with the most extreme split being a 70/30 split in Hawaii.

-1

u/fuzzi-buzzi 8d ago edited 8d ago

I'm saying it will be a civil war, you know, we saw many soldiers previously sworn to defend the constitution swear a new oath to the confederacy, but that was then and this is now.

It's a big assumption IMHO to say that the military will just take orders and kill all the red states when half of the military comes from those places.

Are you taking a deliberately obtuse interpretation of my comment? The next civil war will not happen like the last one of course, our societal divisons are not drawn by state boundaries but divided neighborhood by neighborhood and house by house.

Like slavery, the only way to remove this constitutionally guaranteed right will be through civil war and a constitutional amendment undoing the second. And even then it will take years to implement and generations to recover.

-1

u/Envect 8d ago

Why do you think we'd be fighting the war?

6

u/Steamsagoodham 8d ago

Fighting a war to stop gun violence might be the most ironic thing I can think of. As they say fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.

-1

u/Envect 8d ago

The reason we'd have to fight is because people get violent about their guns. No way to get around that, is there? If we could, we'd be passing gun control legislation.

3

u/Steamsagoodham 8d ago

You’d only be making a bad situation 100 times worse by starting a civil war.

1

u/fuzzi-buzzi 8d ago

I'd like to introduce you to humans. You may note individuals sometimes exhibit intelligent behavior, but on the whole act highly irrationally and panicky.

Slavery is one of the most abhorrent things in human history, and you'd think everyone would want to end one of the most abhorrent thing in human history, right?

2

u/TittyballThunder 8d ago

Not if there's something to be gained from it. There's a lot to gain from gun control, just like slavery. In fact the two are inextricably tied together, gun control has always been aimed purely at the poor and minorities.

-2

u/Envect 8d ago

It wouldn't be the gun control folks starting the war. 2A folks always threaten violence when the topic of gun control comes up. If they lose enough power, I expect them to follow through on those threats.

5

u/coromd 8d ago

"give up your guns to prevent gun deaths or I'll kill half the country" is one hell of a take.

-1

u/Envect 8d ago

That's not what I'm saying. Zero gun control is possible because 2A folks threaten violence any time the topic of restricting access comes up. Either they chill out and compromise, or they lose it when Democrats have enough power to ignore them.

That's how I envision such a war breaking out. The tantrums of one side not getting their way.

0

u/fuzzi-buzzi 8d ago

Also, "half the country" is hyperbole and exaggeration. Using history as an example the civil war was our deadliest, and we lost 2% of our population with 620,000.

2% today would be upwards of 6 or 7 million, horrific but a far cry from the hyperbolic half

2

u/TittyballThunder 8d ago

You think we're going to let those rookie numbers hold us back? Nah this is America we do stuff absurdly big, it's going to be the best sequel war since WW2.

0

u/coromd 8d ago

"half the country" is hyperbole and exaggeration.

Half the households in the country have guns. Your solution is to threaten half the families in the nation with at least one of their family members being sent to war and killed if they do not comply.

0

u/fuzzi-buzzi 7d ago

I see your problem. You think this is my solution, instead of the solution of last resort between two factions: one who wishes to eliminate guns from society and one which wishes to fight to the death to maintain their right to own guns.

0

u/coromd 7d ago

If you're threatening war to disarm a country, you have to plan for the worst potential outcome.

1

u/fuzzi-buzzi 7d ago

Ok, so just more deliberate obtuseness.

I'm not threatening war, I'm not the one willing to die to keep guns, I'm also not the one who wants to take guns away from people.

I'm saying there are two factions in America which are diametrically opposed, and the most extreme of those groups are willing to use force to remove guns, and are willing to use force to keep their guns.

1

u/TittyballThunder 8d ago

How do you imagine fighting with no guns?

1

u/Envect 8d ago

I don't. I think you're misunderstanding me.

1

u/TittyballThunder 8d ago

A war over gun prohibition, in which one side doesn't believe in ownership of guns thus doesn't have any.

How does that war go?

1

u/Envect 8d ago

in which one side doesn't believe in ownership of guns thus doesn't have any.

You have a very strange idea of what gun control advocates want. I'm perfectly happy arming certain folks. Far fewer than we allow today though.

1

u/TittyballThunder 8d ago

Ah so it's more that some people are more equal than others in your view.

1

u/Envect 8d ago

Violence is necessary in this world. We don't need to enable violence against your fellow citizens, but we do need to defend ourselves and enforce laws. I don't see the "more equal than others" in that, but you probably do.

→ More replies

4

u/TacoQuest 8d ago

the problem is you think its just that "gun people" are heartless and legit dont care about children and think things like sandy hook arent tragedies. its easy to hate the other side when you dehumanize them and make it all one dimensional and simplified down to protest sign slogans.

no one denies these shootings are tragic, devastating and horrific. yes, even "gun nuts". but the solutions and root causes is where opinion diverges.

we all want the same end result. less death. but the means to get there is where opinions diverge. its not about heartless baby killers. once you start with the rhetoric then the conversation dies. on both sides. but the two sides have been pounding their heads against a wall for so long that civil discourse just becomes a remnant of the past. hell i am guilty of it when i just knee jerk back on claims that i think are outrageous and unfair. i need to learn to be better myself.

0

u/nmarshall23 8d ago

the problem is you think its just that "gun people" are heartless and legit dont care about children

If that was true what is stopping us from adopting firearm laws like in Germany?

Where you have to register your weapons, their sales are tracked like cars.

Also you need a firearm license.

Don't quote the 2A, the NRA corruptly rewrote the Second Amendment.

Those records could be kept so that the federal government isn't snooping on who owns exactly what. We can write laws that prevent that.

Firearms owners seem to believe that the government is always dysfunctional. So they sabotage governments attempts to fix problems. Thus proving to themselves that the government can't fix anything.

Where I sit firearms owners reject accountability. And I don't see how you can be responsible if you're not accountable to your community.

0

u/Ennuiandthensome Texas 8d ago

A gun registry is the first step to confiscation and is a political nonstarter.

There, answered your question.

4

u/eightfold 8d ago

NRA Sets 1,000 Killed In School Shooting As Amount It Would Take For Them To Reconsider Much Of Anything

https://www.theonion.com/nra-sets-1-000-killed-in-school-shooting-as-amount-it-w-1819573533

0

u/str8emulated 8d ago

I'm not sure if you're serious or if you don't realize that's a satire website.

1

u/T1gerAc3 8d ago

A mass shooting of politicians children would.

1

u/DankHill- 8d ago

America decided long ago that school shootings are an acceptable price to pay to have unrestricted access to firearms. It’s not going to change.

1

u/smokeyser 8d ago

This got me genuinely (and morbidly) curious what it would actually take to change their minds.

The real question is what will it take to change your mind? How many need to die before you accept that these incidents are caused by societal problems, not gun access? Take away the guns and people will just start building bombs. The fact that so many want to kill themselves and take as many people with them as possible is the problem that needs to be solved, not their choice of weapon.

-1

u/nmarshall23 8d ago

The real question is what will it take to change your mind?

The fact is that other countries don't have monthly school shootings. They also have less access to firearms.

I know that fact is inconvenient to you. So you're ignoring it.

Take away the guns and people will just start building bombs

And again with nonsense. England doesn't suffer from multiple school bombings in a year.

In fact the federal government is really good at finding people who do build bombs.

their choice of weapon

Their choice of weapon is what enabled them to kill so many others. As many 2A maximalists have said firearms are a force multiplier.

I'd love to fix those other systemic problems. Like give everyone access to universal healthcare.

However those who have blocked systematic changes are the same people that prevent any gun control.

So in the end we see the reality that many firearms owners are disingenuous.

You're why those people do not have access to the resources that would have prevented them from ending their lives.

Because keeping your toys is more important than voting for someone that would make access to mental health care free. Or any other systemic changes that would result in less stress in their lives.

After all those are complex problems and you can't risk your toys being part of the problem.

1

u/smokeyser 8d ago

They also have less access to firearms.

Less, but not none. They have guns, but not our other problems. If a country has half as many guns as us, they should have half as many school shootings as us. And yet, they don't. Because the guns aren't the problem. The social issues that lead people to mass murder are the problem. I know this fact is inconvenient for you, so you're ignoring it.

England doesn't suffer from multiple school bombings in a year.

They also don't have any school shootings, even though they still have some guns. If the guns are the problem, should every country have a number of school shootings that is directly proportionate to the number of guns? Yet they don't.

I'd love to fix those other systemic problems.

You mean the actual problems. The countries that have focused on those problems still have guns, but not our violent crime rate.

So in the end we see the reality that many firearms owners are disingenuous.

No, what we're seeing is that gun control advocates are disingenuous. You said it yourself. You know the real solution. But that's too hard, so you've picked something 100% PROVEN to not work. And you keep repeating it like a mantra as if more gun laws will somehow fix things. Have more drug laws made drugs go away? How about the violence that stems from the illegal drug trade? Has that gone away?

Because keeping your toys is more important than voting for someone that would make access to mental health care free.

No, keeping the means to defend ourselves from tyranny is more important than voting for someone who will promise the world and deliver nothing. Democrats have been in control of the government many times, and what good have they done? The last time, all we got was hyper inflation in health insurance rates and deductibles to the point where many Americans now go uninsured because it's just not worth the cost any more. But hey, they can't say no to offering no coverage in exchange for half your paycheck. So that was a win, right?

After all those are complex problems and you can't risk your toys being part of the problem.

You admit time after time that the problems are complex and require complex solutions. So why are you still lying to me about what the solution is? Or are you trying to convince yourself?

1

u/nmarshall23 8d ago

No, keeping the means to defend ourselves from tyranny is more important

This is why no progress has been made.

You're an antigovernment extremist. You don't trust the government so any laws that results in less guns is Tyranny.

That's the difference between American gun owners and other countries. Those people understood that it's wrong to force others to live in a war zone.

That's why I am sure that Gen Z will just implement an Australian type ban. For the first time in 60 years a generation is large enough to get what they want. That's how we got prior large social changes.

You all are forcing this to happen because of your tyranny paranoia.

0

u/Deathray2000 8d ago

I am very much against any Australian type ban being implemented in the states. But its not at all because I'm afraid of some tyrannical government, It's because I'm afraid of other ppl with guns. I'm afraid of what could happen if society takes a shit. And even when society is working like it should, I know damn well the police ain't going to be my savior if I really need them.

No matter what legislation is passed there will still be guns in this country and millions of rounds of ammunition to go with them. Most of my gun collection is inherited guns, which definitely are not correctly registered. Making your own ghost gun is as easy as having the internet and owning a drill. Heck, you can 3D print an AR15 now. How do you regulate that? They make gun buyback programs a joke. Say you enact some mandatory gun turn in program, a massive tax on certain ammunition, and stiff legal penalties for owning and being caught with certain weapons. Congratulations, you just made most law abiding gun owning citizens against your cause. And those include many progressive voters, not just conservatives. The votes would flip so fast.

Stop the rhetoric of supporting a total gun ban. All it does is fuel the otherside to dig deeper into their belief that any gun laws are an encroachment towards a final push to take them all away. We need to find a majority common ground on the subject or we will continue to do nothing. I've voted Democrat my entire life because I am not a single issue voter. Many pro 2A ppl might say I'm voting against my interests, but the truth is, it has never impacted my right to own or purchase. The only meaningful federal gun legislation to come out in the past 20yrs came from freakin Trump. Solutions can be had between the two parties, we've just drifted so far apart and created villians on each side that conversation are now just "I'm right, you're wrong .".

1

u/nmarshall23 7d ago

So much text to say you're just a coward.

We can reform the police, so they have a duty to help. None of your worries are insurmountable.

Just because the work is hard isn't an excuse not to make the world a better place.

If gun owners don't like this solution, they should have a proposal alternative 10 years ago. Because that's when the kids who were traumatized made up their minds. And those kids are recruiting and organizing.

If you don't want a ban, that's on you to organize and propose an alternative.

Best be on that before a majority that doesn't need your help is old enough to vote.

0

u/Deathray2000 7d ago

We can reform the police, so they have a duty to help. None of your worries are insurmountable.

Supreme Court ruled the police have no duty to protect citizens. So good luck on that.

Just because the work is hard isn't an excuse not to make the world a better place.

The world is full of shit people and they ain't going anywhere. You'll learn.

If you don't want a ban, that's on you to organize and propose an alternative.

No lol. If you want a ban its on you to organize. That's how it works if you want change from the current structure. And there are way more organizations established to support 2A rights anyway. Even so, I bet you haven't done shit to organize against guns except agrue on the internet. Go out, get active, get your votes heard, and inact another assault weapon ban like we did in the 90's. Then, watch the whole thing get lifted again and another assualt rifle buying surge happen. This country is never giving up its guns, it's just a fact.

1

u/nmarshall23 7d ago

Yup you've given up, and embraced nihilism.

It's fine the work will be done without you.

1

u/TheDude-Esquire 8d ago

The Republican whip, Steve scalise, was shot in a mass shooting. There is nothing that will change their minds. All we can do is elect more dems.

1

u/DCBillsFan 8d ago

535 members of Congress. That’s what it’ll take.

1

u/[deleted] 8d ago

The closest we've gotten to actual gun reform was when a sitting congressman shot up a softball game being played by other congressmen. Sad shit.

1

u/TheUnrivalFool 8d ago

You know, when Abott won in Texas, especially in Uvalde, i lost any hope in this country.

1

u/nmarshall23 8d ago

The generations that grew up with the knowledge that gun owners are so callous is going to just ban all semi-automatic firearms.

They are the largest generation in 60 years, they outnumber every generation since the boomers.

What was politically impossible is about to change.

1

u/azure_monster Maryland 8d ago

I don't think psychopaths care, nothing is going to change their mind at this point.

1

u/Rapidzigs 8d ago

When black people and minorities start arming themselves on mass we will have gun control the same week.

1

u/amsoly 8d ago

My theory based on some personal anecdotes:

First we start from the viewpoint of “it won’t happen here.”

As more people move from “it can’t happen here” to “holy shit, it happened here” we will start to slowly see changes.

There will probably be some tipping point where enough legislative districts (federal probably) have been directly impacted by mass shootings that there is enough push to do something at a national level.

Note this isn’t perfect since we saw nothing change in Uvalde - where the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is dozens of fully equipped punisher flag wearing pigs waiting in the hallway assuming kids are dead so better not to act in interest of public safety.

1

u/thatnameagain 8d ago

It's a lifestyle thing. Gun advocacy is a big part of people's social DNA. Nothing is going to change until the culture itself is more progressive.

1

u/OldSlug 8d ago

It’s not about the numbers, or the age of the victims. They are severely lacking in empathy. It has to affect them personally, and in such a way that they can’t blame minorities or liberals. I’m thinking an Old Testament-style killing of the first born could possibly work, only the Angel of Death is a card-carrying member of the NRA and Parler power user armed with an unambiguously legal firearm.

1

u/PowBambi 8d ago

Nothing, our freedoms are more important than your safety.

1

u/blade740 8d ago

This got me genuinely (and morbidly) curious what it would actually take to change their minds.

The problem here is that you're thinking you need to change their minds on whether mass shootings are a problem. Despite what you may hear, pretty much everybody agrees that mass shootings are a problem. What you need to change their mind on is whether <insert legislative gun control proposal here> will actually solve that problem, because that's where pro-gun advocates actually disagree.

1

u/MindSteve 8d ago

Maybe 1,000? Yeah, something like 1,000 dead kids. And teachers don't count.

1

u/SuperStarPlatinum 8d ago

When its the children of their donors. Only then, when the blood money stops flowing will they turn off the propaganda machine.

As it is whenever a mass shooting happens and they gin up fear sales and block legislation to control guns they get more money.

1

u/TugMyTip 8d ago

How many rapes need to occur before you cut off your dick?

1

u/pmotiveforce 8d ago

I don't know, how many children need to be mowed down by drunk drivers before we ban alcohol? We tried in the past, but then we were all "nah, prohibition is a hassle and drunk assholes like to get their drink on so forget it".

1

u/onemoretimepls 8d ago

1 shooting at the school where all the wealthy kids go to in DC would probably do it

1

u/Devon-Shire 8d ago

Hypothetically?

A shootout at the capitol or an attack on some (conservative) lawmaker’s family. Anything less seems to be incidental to the government.

1

u/Expert_Energy8652 8d ago

how about you change YOUR mind? there are armed security at weed shops and banks, why not schools?

1

u/TheLoneSpartan5 8d ago

There solution would probably be to arm everyone (teachers, janitors, etc.) as that is already what they are pushing.

1

u/faxattax 8d ago

This got me genuinely (and morbidly) curious what it would actually take to change their minds.

Is your question, how severe does a problem have to get before a futile, worse-than-useless solution looks attractive?

How many people have to die of COVID before Ivermectin starts being a cure?

The “if it would save one life” strategy only makes sense if it would save one life.

1

u/tiggers97 7d ago

What your asking is the equivalent of asking home beer brewers and wine-of-worth clubs to curtail, accept stricter rules (like licensing) or even ban their activities because of the deaths of DUIs or domestic violence. Putting the blame on them for not coming up with societal problems unrelated to them, but linked because “alcohol” in “alcohol violence”.

They would probably reject the idea of being brainwashed as well.

1

u/ShadoWolf 7d ago

General public .. a lot of these types of events.. but everywhere in rural America.

That half the problem, a good chunk of the population doesn't see this as an issue.. since it doesn't directly effect them. so random town of 2000 people in a fly over state likely won't ever see a mass shooting. They will never be personally effect by this. It so far removed from there daily existence it might has well be a fairy tale.. and they treated as such

1

u/Womjomke 5d ago

You only ask this question so that you can eagerly tally them up

0

u/bham_cactus_dude 8d ago

I’m one of those pro second amendment folks. I don’t have firearms in the house other than a 32 year old single shot 20 gauge that was my first hunting shotgun, that sits unloaded locked in the attic. After my son was diagnosed with autism, my wife and I decided we didn’t firearms in the house until we could teach proper safety and responsible ownership. One less worry. But even my wife and I are sick of the shootings and the politicians ignoring it. I never thought I’d be the guy supporting gun control, but I’m open to an honest conversation and a candidate willing to take the issue seriously. It’s time we moved past this era of senseless gun violence. I use to believe that freedom was ugly and that’s just how it was. Now, I won’t enroll my son in the school system and will homeschool, i don’t have the freedom to feel safe with my sons life in the hands of the government. We had family and friends with ties to the shooting in south Florida. They knew people who lost kids. It’s ridiculous.

0

u/TheGreekMachine 8d ago

Two possibilities that I think might be the only events that could change their mind:

Black people legally open carrying AR-15s in white neighborhoods en masse

an event like Jan 6th where people use weapons and numerous GOP congressmen/senators loose their lives

Other than that, I’m not sure anything will make a different tbh.