[-]

Mr_Gibbzz@reddit

I’d like to know how this teenager obtained the rifle. No details like that available yet though

[-]

[-]

gunplumber700@reddit

If that's the fear, and it's a legitimate one, then your best bet is keep one on you at all times while at home. Unless you want to have one in almost every room so you're never more than 2 seconds away from one.

I feel the chance of my toddler getting a hold of an unsecured gun is much more likely than someone kicking in my door in the middle of the night. But I'm also lucky to live in a safe area.

[-]

Too many of these incidents could have been avoided by simply having the firearms locked up to begin with…

[-]

-goneballistic-@reddit

I have had guns all through my house since my children were born.

All adults now. All safe gun handlers.

My kids were never barred access to guns. They could see, handle and shoot them anytime they wanted.

There was no mystery or forbidden allure.

But my kids are all pretty good kids, no real issues or anything weird.

Might not work for everyone but it's how I was raised and how my kids were raised

[-]

Compromise is the way we get what we want.

https://x.com/BeastBughaFN/status/1831404394165973384

Schools no longer gun free zones, allow teaches to concealed carry, add school resource officers, increase security.

[-]

I have no way of knowing if you're a bot, but I'm going with you are a real person with genuine interest in solving this unique American problem of kids dying in school from guns.

Well, this is an 11 year old account that has consistent use during that time, if that helps.

Also, I want you to know I'm a huge 2A supporter, and I'm also a father.

I’m an ICU nurse, not a father, but I’m very close to my young niece and nephew.

The reason I'm not a fan of "allowing" more guns in schools, is because I've seen the quality of teachers, resource officers, etc. that public schools are hiring nowadays. They just can't afford to get the good teachers anymore and it shows. That said, I don't want someone who barely earned their GED to be carrying a gun in the classroom.

You got me there, I haven’t met my niece/nephews teachers, so I can’t give any personal opinions like that.

What I CAN say is that your personal opinion about the quality of our teachers isn’t a good enough reason to dismiss the idea outright. I wouldn’t expect many teachers to carry with it being a more liberal profession, and that changing the perception of schools being soft targets might be enough to deter mass shooters.

[-]

NiftyJohnXtreme@reddit

Let's have guns right there in the school for the mentally ill kids to get hands on it. Saves them a lot of time at least which is very considerate of you, right in the classroom they want to shoot up too, very convenient.

[-]

Aeropro@reddit

Let’s put more useless restrictions on guns so that mentally ill kids can continue to shoot up schools for the next ten years while you incrementally inch the law towards your covert goal of banning guns, mostly because you don’t like them.

Let's have guns right there in the school for the mentally ill kids to get hands on it. Saves them a lot of time at least which is very considerate of you, right in the classroom they want to shoot up too, very convenient.

Let me guess, this is something that you imagined right now, immediately believed and then spread it as it’s definitely going to happen. If not, go on and show me where kids are getting guns from any of those sources to commit mass shootings.

This reeks of the “blood in the streets” wails the democrats gave before they passed constitutional carry in my state, but that never happened, in fact crime went down.

What are your suggestions for preventing mass shootings that can start preventing mass shootings as soon as they are implemented?

[-]

Aeropro@reddit

Do you have any evidence of this ever happening or is this just make believe?

[-]

Jamal_202@reddit

Yes. You evidently do accept school shootings as a price to pay. You have not provided any solutions whatsoever.

[-]

ByornJaeger@reddit

So that is entirely a lie. If you’re not aware of proposed solutions that is one thing. But what would you do about school shootings was a question that most Republican candidates were asked in this election cycle, so there is plenty of footage to find. Personally I prefer Vivek Ramaswamy’s answer. But to say that the right/conservatives/Republicans just accept that as a price to pay is a disingenuous lie.

[-]

Jamal_202@reddit

“3 armed guards in every school” is not a serious answer. Who is funding these people who will stand around and do nothing 99% of the time but will have to be paid well. Also want about big schools? Will 3 suffice? Also it’s absolutely ridiculous to have armed individuals walking around a freaking school where little children are learning and playing. That’s not normal.

What happens when school shooters turn their focus on less defended schools or even churches?

Not a disingenuous lie. The deaths of children are treated as a price to pay.

[-]

ByornJaeger@reddit

Way to move the goalposts. “You provide no solutions” “that solution doesn’t work”. Disingenuous. I would be willing to have an honest conversation, but your false premise is not where this conversation starts.

[-]

Jamal_202@reddit

[-]

Blindsnipers36@reddit

You do know 15 years ago before Chicago you didn't have this second amendment right you think Americans have always had right?

[-]

direwolf106@reddit

I outright reject that idea. At no other time is the phrase “the right of the people” interpreted as a collective right. In fact I’m not even sure a “collective but not individual right” can even exist.

Think about it. You “collectively” have the right to free speech but not as an individual is asinine. Same for right to be secure in your person, right to due process, right have representation, right to not have soldiers quartered in your home, etc. Under no scenario I can imagine does a collective right make any sense. The closest I can find is lots of individuals using their rights together but that’s still individual.

And so the concept of a collective right I have find to be a fabrication by anti gunners purely for this right alone. Your argument I find wholly unconvincing.

Also Hamilton left me with a very different impression.

[-]

Blindsnipers36@reddit

Cool im not sure how you possibly came to that conclusion when there were 225 years of supreme court cases saying it was the case that its not an individual right

[-]

direwolf106@reddit

225 years of Supreme Court cases

Oooh please show me these rulings. Cause I think you are simply believing propaganda and misinformation.

Not That it makes a difference, because current court precedent is what counts. But I still think that your claim is a wholesale fabrication. To be clear I 100% think you genuinely think it’s true and are acting in good faith. I’m asserting that I think you believe a lie fabricated by someone else.

[-]

Blindsnipers36@reddit

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/116/252/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/153/535/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/

[-]

direwolf106@reddit

lol it doesn’t say what you think.

it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts

The court side stepped the issue by saying the constitutional rights didn’t apply to state governments.

And this is of course a defunct legal doctrine as it would let police brazenly ignore the 4th amendment. Which is one of the things the court side stepped here.

But ultimately this case declines to support your assertion of a “collective right” interpretation.

[-]

Blindsnipers36@reddit

It's a collective right because it belongs to the states and their organized militias lol.

How about wage stagnation, insane housing costs, rising food prices, environmental destruction, predatory lending, loss of labor rights, attacks on healthcare? All these things are more or less recent and have huge impacts on the mental of this nation.

[-]

LynnDickeysKnees@reddit

Roll back 60 years when we had students that had guns in their cars at school and school-run shooting clubs.

My personal opinion on what would help our society is no pictures on social media, no social safety net programs and us going out and helping each other ( no giving money to some one else, actual service). I really do think that when you crest a government “charity” program you actually hurt the society because you take the choice away from the “giver” and you take the feeling of gratitude and indebtedness away from the recipients.

I really think these two things are what broke and poring money into mental health to have therapists tell people to “work on them selves” when they should be out there actually helping people and solving real problems I think will do much more to solve the mental health problems than anything else.

[-]

hemingways-lemonade@reddit

I agree with you on social media and imagery, but that's about it. Taking away someone's medicaid isn't going to solve their mental health problems.

[-]

direwolf106@reddit

Taking away someone’s medicaid isn’t going to solve their mental health problems.

The community actually helping them will help lower mental health problems out there in the community.

Also when we have actual problems our unsolvable imagined problems go away and our mental health improves. Generally.

[-]

crash______says@reddit

Better wages, more affordable housing, and a more robust middle class.

You are confusing 1924 with 1954.

[-]

hemingways-lemonade@reddit

Average income (adjusted for inflation) was higher in 1924 tthan 2024. Houses were also less expensive and unemployment was only 1.5% higher.

But the bigger point is how communication and access to information has changed. Less than half of US houses had a telephone in 1924.

[-]

crash______says@reddit

"houses" were like 800sqft and poverty line stats require a logarithmic scale to compare.

[-]

Savitar17@reddit

No, the best way is literally gun control. Mental health issues are prevalent across the entire world, yet school shootings only happen here. When there was a mass shooting in New Zealand, they tightened restrictions, and the problem went away. This is the only country in the world that isn't an active war zone with this problem.

[-]

PandorasFlame1@reddit

That worked so well for cities like Chicago, right? Or states like New York? Or countries like China? Why are you even on a sub about firearms if you're so actively against people having them?

[-]

Smokey_tha_bear9000@reddit

And right leaning gun owners will agree that free mental health care would be a great solution. Then when it’s time to actually get the legislation passed they scream BUT THATS SOCIALISM.

The average r/firearms user is impossible to have a conversation about solutions to shootings because you’ll just get stonewalled with the exact stuff OP posted.

And I say all this as a lifelong gun owner and former lifelong republican.

[-]

ArsePucker@reddit

Amazed this is getting downvoted. You nailed it.

I’m British / US dual citizen. Numerous firearms and no not 3+… many more (all locked up). You have no idea how hard it is to see this sub when someone gets stabbed in UK. All rational thought goes out the window. Its cannon fodder the gun grabbers the shit that people post here.

[-]

Smokey_tha_bear9000@reddit

Like I said, most users here are probably in the 18-25 demographic who can only think in terms of “shall not be infringed”. I was there once. I was even at one point a college campus leader for the Empty Holster Project, as well as one of the first Appleseed instructors to bring on a campus ROTC to an Appleseed shoot. I have always been an advocate for gun rights, but I’m also a realist and I’m also not a single issue voter. These people may grow and learn this world isn’t black and white, and gun rights aren’t binary.

Absolutely they don’t. One of the tenets of facsism is the destruction of public education. Educated people are hard to control. Why do you think people like DeSantis do so much to fuck with the schools in Florida?

[-]

WesternCowgirl27@reddit

Another tenet is disarming the public.

[-]

"Take the guns first, go through due process second."

[-]

sanesociopath@reddit

Especially for mental health?

The mental health related bills are never proposed on their own and at best loosely thrown into some crappie other bill so it can be killed.

wants more funding for public schools?

And government schools would be able to receive more actual dollars themselves if we greatly reduced (or more) the bureaucratic bloat in the department of education

[-]

NineTenSix@reddit

Which GOP politicians are pushing these initiatives? I only seem to hear from the Democractic ones, it would be nice to see a comprehensive mental health plan come from the GOP, I’d support that.

[-]

StutteringDan@reddit

I appreciate your candor and openness to tell your story. You can't solve a problem until everyone can talk about it.

[-]

PandorasFlame1@reddit

You'd hear a lot more stories if less LGBT+ kids from the midwest passed early. My senior year alone, 2 died in a drunk driving related crash and one was murdered near the school.

[-]

StutteringDan@reddit

I'm really sorry to that. 😥 I think our modern world could improve a lot by promoting inspiration for the future and positivity for the younger generation rather than (IMHO) that of the latter.

Seek out positivity in all aspects of life!

[-]

DasKapitalist@reddit

free access to mental healthcare

That's completely absurd, and I'll explain why:

1) Children aren't born crazy. Nor, barring a freak head injury, do they spontaneously become crazy. They're abused, neglected, or both into various maladaptive behaviours lumped under "mental illness".

2) Neglecting and/or abusing children is a crime.

3) If the child is well-parented (read: not neglected), and some rando like a neighbor abuses the child, the child is going to tell a parent and the parent will protect the child.

4) If the parent does nothing, that's neglect. A crime.

5) If the parent neglects or abuses the child directly, that's also a crime.

6) Medical care for children requires parental consent. So your "free mental health care" requires the parent to admit somebody committed a crime, please talk to my child about it in detail"

7) Outside of very rare "strangers in a van full of candy grabbed my kid and got arrested thank goodness", parental negligence pr abuse caused child "mental health" problems. I.e. the parents committed crimes.

8) Criminals dont like to confess crimes, so they're not going to avail their children of treatment. OR they'll lie their asses off, coerce the child to do the same, and pretend it's a Scooby Doo Mystery why Little Timmy identifies as a squirrelkin, is suffering crushing depression, and threatening violence.

9) Treating Scooby Doo mental problems is about as effective as treating Scooby Doo obesity problems. You eat 1000 calories a day of vegetables, exercise religiously, and magically weigh 400 lbs? How is a medical provider supposed to treat impossibly causeless problems?

[-]

PandorasFlame1@reddit

Congrats on immediately being wrong. Bye.

[-]

United-Advertising67@reddit

Literally the best way to address school shootings is to give schools better funding and giving everyone free access to mental healthcare.

The Nashville school shooter had 20+ years of continuous mental health care and medication.

Bro, who the fuck is "we"? I'm as pro-gun as anyone, but I'm not going to tell a gun violence victim to "fuck off". I love the Second Amendment, but your love of it doesn’t give you the right to stomp on someone’s First Amendment just because they’ve experienced a tragedy that changed their point of view. People can use their tragedies to make any point they want, and people do it all the time. Drug users in recovery can warn children against using drugs, and drunk drivers can do the same.

"Being the victim of a mass shooting, surviving a mass shooting, or losing a loved one in a mass shooting does not make your opinion on guns or gun control any more legitimate. You do not get to use your tragedy to guilt-trip gun owners into giving up their rights, and any attempt to do so will be met with the response of 'fuck off.'"

That’s not pro-gun, that’s just being an asshole.

[-]

dirtysock47@reddit (OP)

Nobody's stomping on their 1A rights

They have the right to advocate for whatever laws they wish, and I have the right to tell them to go fuck themselves.

[-]

DontGetTheFatGuy@reddit

I have the right to tell them to go fuck themselves

I'll remember that next time some bible-thumping re1ard says "thought and prayers".

[-]

Firearms-ModTeam@reddit

Your comment has been removed.

Miss spelling the word doesn’t mean it won’t get you flagged.

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

Firearms-ModTeam@reddit

Attack the argument, not the user.

Nah miss me with the diffusion of responsibility bullshit. Less of that these days would only do us good.

Collective punishment isn't a road we want to go down because its a game everyone loses. Hold the individual perpetrators responsible for their intent to cause harm.

Chasing negligent liability is a race to the bottom where we all lose.

[-]

ButtholePatrol_@reddit

Yea, you’re gonna hold children responsible when parents are neglectful and basically hand their kids a deadly weapon…good luck convincing most the country that’s not a ridiculous thing to think. Children are under the care and responsibility of their guardian or parent. If you’re gonna suggest were charging ten year olds who shot their little brother w the gun daddy left out, you’ll be laughed out of any serious discussion.

[-]

Lina_Inverse@reddit

Criminally charging people for accidents is a rediculous proposition in a free society to begin with.

However, I understand the influence MADD and other groups of empty testers that feel the need to mother the rest of us and how big of a voting block that is.

That doesn't mean those people aren't stupid, power hungry, malicious, or more interested in virtue signaling online to appear compassionate to their parasocial friends rather than actually dealing with a problem.

[-]

Owlmechanic@reddit

I think I'm somewhere in between here.

I think the licensed gun owner should be held partially liable, as the gun owner SHOULD by the process of getting the license be required to abide basic child safety/access standards. (Locking the gun up, separating it from its ammunition - if not actively carried/in use)

I say SHOULD because many states already do this, Georgia is not one of them. It may become one of them, but it currently isn't - so we'll see if some of the most basic obvious standards start to be adopted a little more widely.

My guess is probably not, but a little accountability from the people who are legally recognized as responsible for both the weapon and the minor is where we should be. If they are incapable of that basic level of responsibility - no license. Seems simple.

I'm against gun bans, I'm also against irresponsible parents putting other people at risk out of neglect.

[-]

Lina_Inverse@reddit

I wouldn't mind licenses but for the people who issue them.

Gaurantee the license to all applicants at minimal cost and we can talk about it, and even then it's dicey because its a lot easier to tweak a lever on requirements.

A federal credit or tax credit for folks buying safes. Real safes, not residential security containers. Maybe as part of a mandatory life skills class for kids, at least once in elementary, once in middle, and once in high school, that teaches about firearms and firearm safety.

[-]

DontGetTheFatGuy@reddit

Thsts because OP is a mental midget who thinks he's a high school badass.

[-]

lil_mikey87@reddit

I have never understood why schools are such a soft target. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how to better secure schools.

[-]

Laurenz1337@reddit

Schools should not need to be "secured"

[-]

slayer_of_idiots@reddit

Devils advocate, this school had multiple resource officers and a plan in place for lockdowns.

Short of metal detectors at all entrances, the outcome here was about the best outcome you could have hoped for.

The reality is that 99.99% of kids aren’t a risk for shootings. You’re better off simply getting rid of the problem kids and at risk kids. They shouldn’t even be on campus. They would have all generally been expelled or shipped to a special needs school 50 years ago.

[-]

fingernuggets@reddit

I went to school in the hood for awhile. That’s exactly what they had. I don’t see why all schools aren’t locked down like that…

[-]

Smokey_tha_bear9000@reddit

Probably because many states are too busy banning books and passing laws requiring religious propaganda to be posted in classrooms

[-]

lil_mikey87@reddit

I would much rather have banned books and kids be safe than being taught about drag queens and being gay or stuff that doesn’t need to be talked about in an elementary school.

[-]

Firefox_Alpha2@reddit

So schools should be unprotected, but politicians get armed guards at capitol buildings?

[-]

Maybe because public schools are a zoo and prison combo

[-]

rDevilFruitIdeasMod@reddit

They feel like they aren't listened too, misunderstood and don't have a voice. But they know how to get the entire country and a big chunk of the world to listen their "manifeso", since every news channel will read it on air for millions to hear.

[-]

Ruthless4u@reddit

Sad reality is even if you harden schools enough there are easy ways to get to the children, they even involve firearms to be effective.

[-]

SOUTHPAWMIKE@reddit

Even if you harden schools, there's no guarantee that that armed School Resource Officer won't just chicken the fuck out, like that piece of shit who should have tried to save those kids in Parkland. (I'm not saying we shouldn't try, but fuck that dude in particular.)

[-]

PoopyPantsBiden@reddit

Even if you harden schools, there's no guarantee that that armed School Resource Officer won't just chicken the fuck out, like that piece of shit who should have tried to save those kids in Parkland. (I'm not saying we shouldn't try, but fuck that dude in particular.)

Because the housing crises, very poor wages and the rising prices last 20 years have left a lot of people in the west struggling to make it by, adding to the growing mental health issues and radicalizing people towards violent actions in a hope for change.

Yeah securing the schools should be the priority for this type of situation. Really that’s the big factor in all of these situations, these guys pick schools because they know it’s mostly defenseless children and a few teachers of who are not armed. If a person with a machete gets into a classroom and barricades the door behind them it would end the same way as some young kids and 1 25-60 year old likely woman teacher isnt gonna be able to fight back realistically.

There are always going to be bad people and if it’s not one way they will find another. If they can’t get in the building in the first place you stop that mostly. Yeah you’ll still have students get around that as they are students and supposed to be there but there are other methods you can implement like metal detectors and stuff to help there.

[-]

RedBlankIt@reddit

Who’s gonna pay for the guards? The broke ass schools?

[-]

leadbetterthangold@reddit

Put police substations in schools. Plenty of time cops spend at a desk.

[-]

WesternCowgirl27@reddit

You could also have retired officers volunteer for school security. That’s what my neighbor does, and he loves being able to go in and help protect students every day.

[-]

TacitusCallahan@reddit

You could also have retired officers volunteer for school security.

Retired LEOs are actually kinda a hot commodity in the security world. An entire volunteer force wouldn't likely retain officers well. I was a CSO for a university with its own police force for a while. A ton of time, money and funding actually goes into keeping it running properly. It's great your neighbor does it but it will encounter issues on a large scale.

You also have to keep in mind what kinda security you can provide and what the school district is willing to accept. Unarmed security which is the vast majority of the industry is generally pretty useless. It's there to lower insurance rates. Properly armed and trained security officers require certifications, experience and a higher tier of liability insurance that someone has to pay for.

[-]

WesternCowgirl27@reddit

This is true. I grew up in a well-funded red school district in Colorado, and we had armed security and a police officer assigned to our high school. I believe he also volunteers in the same district.

If people want to take the matter seriously and fund this type of protection for the school, then they need to come to a general agreement on what that looks like. I’m also for arming and training teachers (there are plenty who would be up for the task and who are already CCW holders). There’s things to be done to make schools a tough target.

[-]

maybejane@reddit

This is probably a dumb question but don’t criminals and people who want to report crimes go to police stations? I feel like these types of interactions aren’t what I would want my hypothetical children to be exposed to daily.

I kind of hate the idea of creating a police-state-like environment for children in general, though.

[-]

sanesociopath@reddit

Not half bad.

But just to poke some holes in this it would make the schools even more prison like and now any of the dick cops no one likes interacting with that are usually isolated away are around out kids all day.

[-]

leadbetterthangold@reddit

Armed school resource officer stopped this guy. Call them cops or resource officers if it makes people feel better, but harden the schools and protect the students.

[-]

FuNiOnZ@reddit

Your question is just an attempt at muddying the waters though. The other guy provided a very real scenario where the results mirror our common school shooting events over here. You have taken that and then exaggerated the number in an attempt to downplay the capability of knives.

We generally do not have school shootings that end in 20 or more deaths also, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and Uvalde are the only ones we've had that have had that many. That's 3 since we've started recording them in 1764 (and one of them was from a kid using handguns)

[-]

Didnt pennsylvania just pass a law hardening schools by mandating a school officer? I'm pennsylvanian so I should probably know but I can't find anything about it even tho I was sure we did something like that relatively recently.

[-]

L-V-4-2-6@reddit

My understanding is that they were even warned ahead of time.

[-]

LagerthaKicksAss@reddit

For everyone coming down on the FBI for not doing something about this kid that was "...on their radar...", what exactly do you think they should have done? If the kid hadn't done anything yet, wouldn't there have been a big hue and cry about federal "overreach" and violating an "innocent" kid's rights, etc.?

[-]

Varnu@reddit

On top of that the police just allow them to operate out of fear of facing retaliation from social media. Which has happend.

And it's gang on gang so no one cares and just allow the shitshow to continue.

And their plan is to take all the legally owned firearms from citizens which means the criminals will now never have to face retaliation from their victims. Unless of course they are a criminal to.

And they won't acknowledge a problem because many of the gangs would for some reason God only knows social media support. And the gun grabbers fear the hit to their social media precesnse.

So they remain silent. Even after all their failed gun reforms continue to fail. And violence continues.

[-]

NiftyJohnXtreme@reddit

Imagine writing that first point and not really taking a hard look at yourself. I'm convinced you LIKE watching kids die. It's not like you're going to have to turn in your guns. Gun control is more about making it harder for people that shouldn't have them to get them. Use some common sense.

[-]

dirtysock47@reddit (OP)

It's not like you're going to have to turn in your guns.

Kamala Harris says otherwise

[-]

civilianweapon@reddit

School shooters were always troubled kids on some kind of watchlist. Why don’t we just get rid of those kids?

Because all school shooters were troubled kids, but VERY FEW troubled kids become school shooters. There are far more students whose less-than-Brady-Bunch attitude has landed them on a watchlist than you would think. Separating all of them into their own school would be financially unfeasible, not to mention unfair. These aren’t lawbreaking kids. Just unhappy kids. A very few of whom decide to shoot people.

Most gun owners are law-abiding, and can be trusted with any type of firearm.

And shootings are not made worse by the type of firearm used. In fact, most mass shootings (going by FBI reports) involve handguns. The third-worst mass shooting, Virginia Tech in 2007, with 32 people killed, involved handguns. The two worst, Orlando and Las Vegas, did involve rifles, and fatalities were 50% and 100% higher, but these are statistical outliers. The majority involve handguns.

So, on that point, I am uncompromising. I don’t believe in outlawing certain types of guns, or forbidding anyone who hasn’t committed a crime from owning a gun.

I want gun ownership to reflect the policies of other nations with high rates of gun ownership and very low rates of gun violence. I want gunowners limited to two guns. Two of any type, but only two.

That is the difference in the United States. We don’t have more violent people, or more mental illness. We’re the only nation that allows it citizens to accumulate mini-arsenals of firearms. That’s too many to keep track of, and why so many of them end up stolen. When I hear gunowners say they’re not even sure how many guns they have, all I can think is “That’s not a well-regulated militia.”

You have two hands. You can have two guns. It is not the case that you really need a special type of gun for each species of animal you hunt. All the species we’ve hunted to extinction were hunted with muskets. We can be overrun with pheasants if it reduces deaths from gun violence.

As far as the OP’s original argument goes, I promise that telling survivors of mass shootings that you don’t care about their experience, and saying out loud that the deaths of children in school leaves you unmoved, will not persuade more people to see the value of your opinion. Honesty is not always appreciated.

[-]

SJay_Plays@reddit

"I promise that telling survivors of mass shootings that you don’t care about their experience"

No one is saying they don't care about their experiences. Just that you shouldn't make laws and infringe rights based on emotional arguments.

saying out loud that the deaths of children in school leaves you unmoved

Put_It_All_On_Eclk@reddit

People in firearm-restricted countries hit double digits frequently:

List of rampage killers in China - Wikipedia

List of rampage killers in Oceania and Maritime Southeast Asia - Wikipedia

It's part of the reason why framing the issue as a mass shooting problem and not a spree killing problem is a biased argument. Apparently people kill with whatever they can get their hands on.

[-]

ThePenultimateNinja@reddit

Apparently people kill with whatever they can get their hands on.

And unfortunately, there are a lot of imbeciles that think that banning objects will somehow stop it from happening.

[-]

NiftyJohnXtreme@reddit

Not stop it, but massively, and I mean MASSIVELY decrease the numbers of these killings. It's right in the data. The US has an insanely higher amount of mass killings, like it's not even close.

[-]

ThePenultimateNinja@reddit

No, you are making the false assumption that banning firearms would prevent it happening, and that is absurd. You are one of the imbeciles I was referring to.

We know that mass killers who can't get guns use other weapons instead, often kitchen knives. Did you not click the links above?

The worst mass killing in modern history was carried out with a truck. If someone decides to kill a bunch of people, they will find a way to do it. This is not a problem that can be solved by banning things.

[-]

NiftyJohnXtreme@reddit

You are completely missing the point. And you also can't read.

[-]

GodofWar1234@reddit

Banning semiautomatic rifles (because that’s what they are, they’re not “assault weapons”) is a cosmetic bandaid on the larger issue. ARs are such a huge deal, yet nobody talks about pistols being used far more often in crimes.

[-]

creative_usr_name@reddit

Banning assault weapons doesn't actually stop school shootings

I mean the guy who tried to assassinate Trump was using his dad's Daniel Defense.

But yeah, it is suspicious that these high school age mass shooters are using ridiculously expensive weapons. Those kids should be running around with a cheapass Colt knockoff.

[-]

hemingways-lemonade@reddit

We have multiple high profile mass shootings every year whether or not there's an election. Conspiracy theory dog whistles just make gun owners look bad. Keep those stupid takes to yourself.

[-]

JBCTech7@reddit

50/50 odds this was a psyop to help harris.

So to your point of claiming anyone that survives a mass shooting etc doesn’t have a more valid opinion on guns.

Why does owning a gun make your opinion anymore valid and give you the moral high ground to tell these people to fuck off?

How many of you have had a child die from a gunshot wound at school?

[-]

barto5@reddit

We have provided several solutions

You’re out of line but these getting less traction is actually going to help reduce them. Suicides aren’t really talked about because if you talk about someone committing suicide you increase the chances of someone else doing it. They are somewhat contagious in a way.

that_one_2a_femboy@reddit

didn't you already ban alcohol once?

[-]

Arm literally every citizen, and trust no one. FREEDOM!

[-]

WhyRedditBlowsDick@reddit

Hey at least reddit is finally admitting 2A is a Republican thing.

I've made all of these points on numerous occasions, in varying degrees of eloquence and civility.

jetsetterga@reddit

Only thing standing between you and a Venezuelan type USA are the 2A peeps.

[-]

RubeRick2A@reddit

If only we could like, I dunno, make a law that killing people is bad and shouldn’t happen. No, you think we should ignore that one completely. Let’s make other laws to violate the rights of others that surely (without enforcement and in areas where even theft isn’t punished) will solve it this time! Surely!

[-]

kuavi@reddit

"I know this might come across as "preaching to the choir, but it needs to be said."

So say it in a non gun-friendly echo chamber then. Posting this here doesn't do anything for the culture war.

[-]

sSnowblind@reddit

lol downvoted for the actual truth. OP won't post this elsewhere because all his hot takes are unpopular.

[-]

Slicelker@reddit

Also because he doesn't know how to communicate with people outside of his bubble.

[-]

imbatatos@reddit

Problem is not with someone owning half a military stockpile in your backyard. No issues with that

Last_Entertainment86@reddit

Project Exile and Arming Teachers will do far more than the empty platitudes of anti-gunners used for every pow wow drum session. I'm a teacher by trade and I don't mind if I have to carry a gun to protect my students.

[-]

chip7890@reddit

I'd be very curious to know if most teachers agree with your sentiment

[-]

Bradadonasaurus@reddit

This is the kind of government program I'd be happy to fund.

[-]

bl00m00n09@reddit

We have provided several solutions that do not violate the rights of gun owners, yet the anti-gun side

I'm 100% against gun control, but we need to be honest there hasn't been an effective solution.

Free Mental Health? No. Turn schools into Prison style systems? No - defund schools or reduce budget. Arming teacher? It's being tested, but there's no results. Most teachers don't want to participate. The other argument is that it just gives kids potential access to a gun from an inexperienced gun owner.

Obviously red-flag or restrictions don't matter, potential shooter could just steal it from a friend or family member.

We need some better solutions or both parties need to reverse course on Mental Health/School Budget.

This kid was 14 years old, spent most of his social development years in covid. He just started HS and he spazs out. These kids have grown up and are conditioned/primed for gun violence. School year just started and sadly I don't think it'll be the last event for the year.

Some points to think about and consider.

[-]

tedtomlin@reddit

What are the solutions in bullet two?

[-]

shooter505@reddit

It seems most anti-2nd Amendment folks believe all firearm owners are murderers...they just haven't "done the deed" yet. Therefore, they need to have their firearms confiscated before they do.

Anti-second amendment folks encourage passing more laws that restrict the Second Amendment's freedom. They make the emotional argument that all of these laws are "worth it, even if it saves just one life."

If that logic holds, then how many lives lost are tolerable to the anti-gun crowd before they stop trying to pass more and more restrictive laws to "save just one life"?

Will they stop when only 20,000 people nationwide are killed in a year with guns?

5,000?

Would they pass more laws if even one life is taken by someone with a gun?

To me, it seems as if we are experiencing "incremental confiscation." Here's the cycle...

People get killed with guns.

The public rise up, "We need more gun control to prevent people from killing with guns!"

Laws get passed that dictate more gun control, e.g., universal background checks, but people will still be killed.

No private sales without an FFL performing the transfer, but people will still be killed.

OK, so gas-operated firearms are banned, but people still get killed.

High-capacity magazines are banned, but people are still killed. Folding stocks are banned, protruding pistol grips on rifles are banned, bayonet lugs are banned, flash suppressors are banned, threaded barrels are banned, on and on and on.

Then, people still get killed with guns.

The public rise up again, "We need more gun control...what we did before wasn't enough!"

And so on...

Eventually, when people are still getting killed with guns, the politicians will throw up their hands and claim, "Well dang...we've tried everything to control guns, and people are still getting killed! The only course of action we haven't taken is confiscation! We need to confiscate every gun from every home in the United States. Only then will we have no one being killed with them!"

no, we do not "accept" school shootings as "a price to pay for freedom". We have provided several solutions that do not violate the rights of gun owners, yet the anti-gun side rejects every single one of them because they aren't the solutions that they want

What solutions are those? I’m pro-gun but man it’s exhausting how I know nothing will change at all

[-]

alkatori@reddit

IMO the only reasonable solutions would be a major investment in public healthcare and screening folks for mental illness with the intent to treat early.

That's not a popular take around these parts though.

[-]

MoltenMirrors@reddit

Yeah, based on the responses I think a lot of pro-2A people, while they might be upset about school shootings like any decent person, deep down don't feel any urgency to work towards a solution because they believe it would never happen to them and theirs.

Solutions are out there but in my opinion, people fail to understand times have changed and so do the conditions and methods you have to employ to counteract problems. 60s, 70s, 80....could you can buy a gun out of a catalog and have it mailed to your house? you could own a full auto. How is it there were not this many school shootings back then, if there were any, but now we have more restrictions on how to obtain firearms, you cannot own full autos (unless Tax Stamped and Pre 1986), and we get this.....but it's gotta be the gun, right? Ban AR-15s and all it will take is a kid to 3D print one and then what? Ban 3D printers? Why if the kid decided to due explosives?

Society has lost the disciplinary action that adults have over kids. I lied and the coach smacked me across the head. My parents said nothing. Now if you did that today, parents are ready to sue which in some cases empowers the kids more that "my parents will take care of it".

Hopefully, they question the kid more on WHY he did it and what lead up to the decision on this shooting, why he didn't feel to maybe talk to an adult, and use that information to prevent future. However, I think politicians will just want to Ban AR-15s because that will get them votes.

[-]

DANOM1GHT@reddit

"Maybe if we beat our kids more the shootings will stop."

[-]

JBCTech7@reddit

You give up on trying to convince pro-lifers that baby murder is ok?

[-]

CH-67@reddit

Armed protection for schools is a big one. And their reluctance to tackle mental health issues. Asylums need to make a return in some fashion.

[-]

NPDogs21@reddit

How many armed officers should patrol each school?

Who are the ones blocking funding for mental health too?

Rich-Promise-79@reddit

Asylums have nothing to do with this, and would have absolutely no involvement with people like this at any stage of their existence. Not before any events nor after. So yeah, kind of a dumb statement to make.

[-]

MoltenMirrors@reddit

There's plenty of blame to go around for deinstitutionalization. As governor, Reagan signed California's bill in the 1960s that served as a template for other states. The Democrats then passed Federal block grants for community based care to replace institutions in 1980. As president, Reagan led its repeal in 1981, resulting in almost no Federal funding for mental health programs which continues today.

[-]

Hmmm. I’m more sick of reading how there are warnings but no one takes action.

[-]

_wastelandmedic@reddit

It's very, very suspicious. I'll leave it at that, as to not sound too crazy.

[-]

You can be pro gun and pro gun control, regardlessof people think that is impossible. You can also want mental health access to all which would help (but not eliminate) prevent these shootings. It's sad because thoughts and prayers literally do nothing.

[-]

You get to bitch but have absolutely no responsibility. Best of both worlds. My hat's off to you, clever sir

[-]

LynnDickeysKnees@reddit

Yes. 🤣

[-]

Almost-Jaded@reddit

For almost 100 years, you could order a fully automatic machinegun in the mail without a background check. No school shootings.

Up until a few decades ago, and within memory of anyone over 40-50 years old (depending on area), it was perfectly normal to bring guns to school. In the back of the truck, and sometimes in your locker. Highschools had rifle clubs. No school shootings.

It isn't the guns.

[-]

C-ute-Thulu@reddit

OK. Then let's try something besides taking away/giving away guns. Literally anything

[-]

Almost-Jaded@reddit

Awesome! Now that we agree that guns, inanimate objects that they are, aren't the problem - and by extension, that punishing the ~110 million legal gun owners that aren't commitment these crimes is a dick move and a massive constitutional violation, let's look at the real problems.

1 - fix the mental health crisis. Almost 60% of all gun deaths in the US are suicides. Mass shootings make headlines, but if you actually want to address total gun deaths - this is where you go first. Guess what..? You'll address the vast majority of mass shootings at the same time. And shoving pills down kid's throats isn't a fix - on fact, it's probably contributing to the school shootings. Mass casualty events among minors and psychotropic medications for minors timelines are almost a mirror image.

2 - end the war on drugs. This is the single biggest failure in US government history. It has never put a dent in the drug trade. It HAS, however, enriched and empowered the most violent organizations on two continents. Gang and cartel violence has skyrocketed under this policy. Remove police shootings self defense, and suicides - drug related violence accounts for over 80% of gun violence in the country. And that wasn't the case before 1972.

3 - you aren't gonna like this one. Eliminate defenseless victim zones. 80% of actual mass shootings involve somebody ignoring those useless signs and going after people they KNOW can't defend themselves. The only thing dumber than gun free zones, are flat earthers. It's on that level.

There are more steps, but with those two we just reduced total gun deaths by 75%. The rest are even tougher issues, to do with poverty and education, family dynamics, and social media. But mental health and the war on drugs just dropped it massively.

Eliminating defenseless victim zones means more of these situations end with one or two dead instead of more. Eventually, mass shootings will lose their luster to the best people, when they know they're gonna die before they get very far. Do you know who Eli Dicken is? Do you know what he did, when and where? No? Probably because there was only one fatality, and that was the guy that tried to shoot up a mall. Eli was there. A well practiced concealed carrier. Transfer the Clackamas Mall shooting? No? Huh. The shooter tab away and unalived themselves before racking up a body count after being confronted by a concealed carrier.

The problem I have seen with that is, well a few of them, starting with:

People will bitch the government is delving into our personal lives too much, let alone specifically medical info (violation of hippa laws.) this alone will have people avoiding shrinks like the plague since those fuckers think everyone is a lunatic (yeah I’ve seen it first hand…or second hand, I dunno, my friend went to a shrink for something normal shrink decided to pull some sketch shit and get him comitted on some shit he never said or did or anything.)

People will see it as an infringement/violation upon our rights to privacy (as mentioned above) to enjoy another right.

From that above ^ there will be constitutional challenges based upon a “give up your 4th ammendment to enjoy your second” kind of thing because of the invasion of privacy(can be seen by some as a precursory search of a persons history). Similar in a way to the (now deemed unconstitutional) poll tax. However, until that gets SCOTUS judgement there will be people undoubtedly in jail/prison on what will end up being deemed unconstitutional charges, so what happens with them? Do you trust the govt to immediately release them and drop charges?! Lmfao yeah I’ve read about civilizations coming into existance that were faster than that’ll be.

Imo, that mental health thing while it could have been good if done properly (big if), it lost a lot of favor when normal people were getting red flagged by spiteful or vengeful spouses or ex spouse/bf/gf’s. Additionally when it came to light that a good number of the mass shooters at the time were already on heavy antipsychotic meds it kinda proved another point we as pro 2a people like to make is that, crazy will find a way. Gun, car, bomb, knife(or other slicing or pokey bit). Hell look at I believe it was the sandy hook kid, BIG time psych meds, IIRC he killed his mother who (again iirc) was a cop, stole her guns and went to that school. So he commits murder, and theft all before going to the school, to commit more murder.

Then even IF, you were able to get a mental health stuff done right and legally and make it damn hard to just willy nilly red flag someone, there’s always the potential with govt legislation to say “oh you think ‘this way’ or ‘that way’ that’s now classified as a mental disorder…. We’ll be taking your guns now as you’ve just been declared a danger to yourself or others by the stroke of a pen and a raising of hands perse, contrary to your entire existance up to this point.” That will put us right back to where we are now, where it is teetering predominantly on left and right party lines…. One sees private citizen ownership as a massive liability and are authoritarian, while the other side claims to be the opposite (lol not always the case) and the 2 sides will fight eachother for eternity.

Truth is, when we used to keep the crazies and criminals locked up so they can’t hurt people, we never really had these situations…. I mean yeah sure there were a few here or there, but most of those were psyops by govt agents (one way or another, reference mk ultra shit) but to the degree that we experience them now? No way.

[-]

C-ute-Thulu@reddit

I've worked in community mental health for 25+ yrs and at least in my state, it's EXTREMELY difficult involuntarily hospitalize someone.

Is your "friend" who went to the shrink who thought he was a lunatic actually you?

[-]

ricochet845@reddit

In my state to get someone committed is the 3pc rule at the very least.

Absolutely fucking not me…. He got a fishy feeling about his shrink and sold me all but like 2 of his guns (2 that he didn’t were handguns I did not have a permit for at the time). I still have them. And he’s still fighting to get his record cleared to legally own them again and this is AFTER it was proven his shrink lied (ended up losing his license and fined, in a plea deal to not face prison time). The govt said his record was cleared like 3 years ago, he went to buy a pump action shotgun and got denied, so yeah I have my doubts the state (federal or actual states) will move quickly to clear up records or processes of release people who are jammed up on shit that would be (in my above example) deemed unconstitutional. Now I know my friend is and was technically cleared of any and all bull shit “mental health issues” however I legally cannot sell him his guns back cause then I get jammed up. He knows that, he knows I have them and will only sell them back to him. He also has a lawyer getting the process going further and faster.

Your automatic accusation of saying it is really me is another reason why normal people like us despise the whole mental health bull shit requirements. And you have proven my point about why no one would really go for that, shrinks lie, and exaggerate truths and don’t want any liability in saying someone’s a danger when they’re not. Is this me being defensive? Not at all, this is me proving the point that a lot of normal people believe imo.

[-]

Glad this one was apprehended while still living and can be interrogated this time. Maybe we can get some insight on the why.

[-]

BackInThaDayz@reddit

You didn’t watch them get killed. You read about it.

Please list the solutions….

Correct not all AR owners are crazy but a there’s enough that are who own them that should’ve never been allowed to. Hell the Republican shooter who shot at Trump used a AR 🤦🏽‍♂️😂

If you lose a family member ESPECIALLY a child to gun violence your voice is louder 🤦🏽‍♂️ they literally know how it feels to lose someone when they should’ve never had to 🤦🏽‍♂️

“We shouldn’t have to trust you guys” you and your kind have been paranoid about “the government taking away my guns” for over hundreds of years and yet it’s the easiest time to buy one. Some style of guns should be either banned or you must have to complete training to own. Funny thing that your closet full of guns can’t stop that one small drone from taking you and your whole gang out in a second 🤦🏽‍♂️😂

You can’t say shit like you just did because maybe you’re a responsible gun owner but there’s millions who aren’t. You want to say that the families or politicians are “collecting you all together” you literally did to them what you claim they don’t you 🤦🏽‍♂️ The “bodies aren’t even cold yet” and you just posted a whole book about you and your feelings. Showing how upset you are 🤦🏽‍♂️😂

I own guns. I’m from Texas. I love my guns but I believe that these walking methheads shouldn’t be able to collect enough cans to go to the nearest pawn shop to buy a gun because of their drug fueled paranoia. I also don’t think a woman abuser should be able to own one either.

I hate having car insurance, I haven’t caused a wreck in my 40 years but I also understand there’s stupid idiots out there that drive like morons.

[-]

dirtysock47@reddit (OP)

Funny thing that your closet full of guns can’t stop that one small drone from taking you and your whole gang out in a second

It'll also take out the whole block, killing the innocent neighbors in the process.

Didn't once of the Columbine fucks use a shotgun?

[-]

benmarvin@reddit

Two actually. And a tec-9 and hi-point carbine.

[-]

thegrumpymechanic@reddit

And that only because their homemade bombs didn't work.

[-]

Billybob_Bojangles2@reddit

Good thing the assault weapon can was in place. That way they didn't use the scary gun to murder people, think how scared they would have been while they died. /s

[-]

Morbins@reddit

Ban all cars. 😏

Drugs are banned. People still get them 😏😏

n00py@reddit

I’m pro-gun also - but in many ways it is the price we pay for freedom.

Just like countless innocent people being killed in car accidents is the price we pay for people being able to enjoy drinking legally.

It seems disingenuous to imply that access isn’t part of what makes this happen, at least in the way it does. Would these psychopaths still kill with other tools? Of course, but we all know that guns are the best tool for killing people - and thus create higher body counts. That’s why we have them - the difference is of course that we only want them for effectively killing evil people and not innocent people.

[-]

[-]

EmptyBrook@reddit

The one thing that sticks out like a sore thumb is the extremely high number of guns in the USA compared to other countries, which is why anti-gun people blame the guns. We have the same mental health issues here, but more weapons floating around. The question is, is it correlation or causation?

[-]

PropitiousNog@reddit

I have a foot in both the UK and US, what sticks out more to me is the number of people on medications for apparent mental health issues in the US. Everyone of my friends in the US that I know of, are taking medication for stress, anxiety, ADHD etc. I don't see anything like the same in the UK. I wonder whether the for profit medical industry is perhaps pushing prescription drugs harder.

Thought experiment. We ban all guns.They disappear. poof, gone, don't question it.

But now, someone gets killed in a home invasion. If that person had a firearm, and simply brandished it, not even firing it, it could have saved their life. But in this world they don't, so theyre dead.

Why is their life less valuable than someone who got shot? Because you've essentially said "sorry, I value the lives of these people, more than everyone else's right to protect themselves"

[-]

ByornJaeger@reddit

On top of this is the fact that more lives are saved through defensive firearm use that are lost to firearms (including suicides) is some how now an acceptable answer to “if it saves one life”

[-]

MaddGerman@reddit

When people ask me "How many children have to die before you agree with gun control". You can't stack the bodies high enough for me to give up my rights. Our rights by definition can not be limited by our government. Really.

[-]

BanAvoidanceIsACrime@reddit

no, we do not "accept" school shootings as "a price to pay for freedom".

Yes, you do, that is the only possible conclusion to draw, and no amount of worthless things you suggest will change that. If they weren't just token suggestions, the Republicans and the pro-gun lobby would have already written them into law, and we'd see the effects.

does not make your opinion on guns or gun control any more legitimate

A victim of a crime can speak with authority of the impact and pain of that crime, so it does, in fact, give more legitimacy.

gun owners are getting nothing in return in any of these "compromises"

True, because less mass shootings is not something you are after

[-]

Simple-Scarcity-6730@reddit

They should investigate what causes young children and adults to commit such horrible acts and deal with that instead of just reclassifying what they deem is an "assault weapon" so they can ban it.

[-]

Vaanilla@reddit

I mean… speak for yourself. If there were a set of equitable circumstances for returning my guns, I’d give them up if it meant having the whole country to be without them.

Heck, when Sandy Hook happened I actively started looking for a program that would allow me to give them back and get paid what they are worth.

So if some company wants mine to destroy, contact me.

[-]

dirtysock47@reddit (OP)

If there were a set of equitable circumstances for returning my guns, I’d give them up if it meant having the whole country to be without them.

The problem, is that no such country exists.

Even if you could get every criminal to give up theirs, the government will still have their guns, and I don't want to live in a world where only the government has guns.

[-]

JBCTech7@reddit

you're...kinda pathetic.

[-]

Smokey_tha_bear9000@reddit

So to your point of claiming anyone that survives a mass shooting etc doesn’t have a more valid opinion on guns.

Why does owning a gun make your opinion anymore valid and give you the moral high ground to tell these people to fuck off?

That might be the single most tone deaf response to a mass shooting of children that I have ever seen. And I’ve been hanging around this sub for years.

[-]

dirtysock47@reddit (OP)

Why does owning a gun make your opinion anymore valid and give you the moral high ground to tell these people to fuck off?

Because they are advocating for laws that will turn me and people like me into felons overnight.

[-]

Smokey_tha_bear9000@reddit

Uh huh. And what law would that be. What serious federal gun bill has been pushed that would require immediate surrender or destruction of your guns under penalty of immediate felony charges?

Since you feel that way, do you see how so many women in this country feel so attacked when men try to trample their reproductive rights and bodily autonomy?

[-]

dirtysock47@reddit (OP)

And what law would that be.

"assault weapons ban"
"safe storage laws"

What serious federal gun bill has been pushed that would require immediate surrender or destruction of your guns under penalty of immediate felony charges?

Kamala Harris has supported "mandatory buybacks", aka confiscation.

[-]

Smokey_tha_bear9000@reddit

“Supported” is not the imminent threat you are describing. That’s quite a stretch. Many high profile Republicans “support” terrible things that aren’t really at risk of becoming law either.

And are you seriously trying to say that safe storage laws are a bad idea? How do you think half of these underage shooters get the guns?

Are you admitting that you won’t or don’t safely store your guns?

[-]

dirtysock47@reddit (OP)

“Supported” is not the imminent threat you are describing. That’s quite a stretch. Many high profile Republicans “support” terrible things that aren’t really at risk of becoming law either.

Cool, so can I use this line every time someone brings up Project 2025?

And are you seriously trying to say that safe storage laws are a bad idea?

Yes, not to mention unconstitutional.

Are you admitting that you won’t or don’t safely store your guns?

Their idea of "safely storing your guns" is to make them into glorified paperweights, that are useless for self defense.

So yeah, I guess I don't "safely store my guns".

[-]

Smokey_tha_bear9000@reddit

Alright. So you aren’t actually interested at all in any sort of reasonable discussion. Life is about compromise.

Telling people to fuck off and stonewalling even the most reasonable solutions like “lock up your fucking gun so kids can’t get to them” is not how you get your way. If anything, anti gun folks will just look at you and be like “see, we tried to reason and find some middle ground with them and they just act like jerks”

[-]

dirtysock47@reddit (OP)

Life is about compromise.

And that's where point #5 comes in. We have no reason to trust any "compromise" that is made, because the gun control side immediately reneges on it whenever the next shooting happens.

“lock up your fucking gun so kids can’t get to them”

I don't have kids

If anything, anti gun folks will just look at you and be like “see, we tried to reason and find some middle ground with them and they just act like jerks”

Their idea of "middle ground" isn't true middle ground.

Banning certain classes of arms, and mandating how peaceable citizens store their property, are both non starters, not to mention unconstitutional.

[-]

Smokey_tha_bear9000@reddit

That’s where we as gun owners need to lead the conversation. I agree that banning guns by type would have no useful purpose.

But locking guns up so kids or any other unauthorized person can’t get their hands on any of my guns not personally in my direct control is an easy win for us. There is no useful argument against it. It’s an easy win for us to drive the conversation to that compromise. Do that and see if it makes a difference and when it does, you can then say we made a compromise and it worked.

It doesn’t have to be the anti gun people always leading the conversation, we just have to be willing to bring something to the table. Showing up and saying “fuck off” does nothing but give the other side traction.

Your arguments are just as bad faith as theirs

[-]

Technical_One181@reddit

You keep talking about compromise, you do realize compromise has lead us to this current climate on guns and assault weapon bans being talked about everytime right?

How would you even police a rule to lock every gun up? Hell every gun/nfa item in my house isnt in a safe, nor should they. I don't think someone breaking into my home will stop and give me a minute to input my pin/spin the dial on a safe before proceeding to do whatever they were going to do.

You raise kids right and they wont fuck around. My dad had 2 handguns in safes but the shotguns and rifles (with ammo out) were in closets accessible to me from when I was 10 till I moved out. Never once did I go play with them or speak on them.

[-]

Smokey_tha_bear9000@reddit

All you can think is in binary. What if I told you that most folks in liberalgunowners are against nearly all the same things you are as far as gun laws go.? Just because I don’t like other shit the right does, doesn’t mean I support the lefts many stupid gun ideas. You won’t believe me but that’s your problem, not mine, but just know that insulting people won’t get you far in life.

I raise my kids right but I still lock my guns up because I’m not stupid, and kids do really dumb shit sometimes.

How would police enforce storage laws? I donno how about throw the book at people who let their unlocked guns fall into the wrong hands? Seems pretty straightforward to me. We can’t prevent crimes that haven’t happened for the most part but we can punish those that break laws. That’s kind of the point of most laws.

It’s wild that you openly admit to not securing NFA items but you do you I guess. Just gives the anti gun people more fodder to make gun owners look like fucking idiots. You bring it upon yourself.

[-]

Technical_One181@reddit

Except yall aren't really against the same laws since yall keep voting for the party that constantly has candidates that call for assault weapon bans.

Me not having a suppressor (and the SBR its on) in a safe defeats the purpose of a home defense gun. This doesn't give any more fodder to anti gunners cause they already are 1) against me having the gun its on since its an assault weapon & 2) are unaware of the BS I had to go through for both items. For making making "us" look like idiots I could care less cause any antigunner is already ignorant to the laws.

[-]

dirtysock47@reddit (OP)

But locking guns up so kids or any other unauthorized person can’t get their hands on any of my guns not personally in my direct control is an easy win for us.

I am pro safe storage (not the insane anti-gun definition of "safe storage", aka keeping guns unloaded and the ammo in a separate safe), I just do not believe it should be mandated by law, especially a law that would have random checks by police to "ensure compliance"

It's already been found unconstitutional

[-]

Potential-Coyote@reddit

Why does owning a gun make your opinion anymore valid and give you the moral high ground to tell these people to fuck off?

The same way the [INSERT NEWSPAPER] has way more validity in fighting against laws attacking freedom of the press than [INSERT POLITICIAN] has after being libeled in a published article. One entity is defending a natural right protected by the constitution. The other is attacking the rights of all in response to one illegal act committed by one newspaper.

[-]

MooreChelsL8ly@reddit

You are posting this before the bodies are even identified…and not yet cold. This comes across to me as very insensitive. So you can go “fuck off.” Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Just like in the local swimming pool that gets shut down every summer, it takes one turd to ruin it all for everyone. If we can’t get people to be responsible gun owners, then what else can we do? Either take the guns away or legally fix the problem. Children should not be compromised and left in the crosshairs. And that includes the 14 year old who’s parents absolutely allowed this to happen. His life is now forever damaged and ruined as well. He is a child without a fully developed frontal cortex and should never have had access. Guns are the number one weapon used in America. Not everyone should have that level of access. Let’s fix that. Tougher laws on weapons storage and charge these parents EVERY SINGLE TIME. Background checks. Mandate that every person trying to buy a gun has to take a state run gun safety class. Every gun should come with a trigger lock. We need to think of this like we think of alcohol or drugs. Not old enough? Brain not finished developing? Then who supplied you? Hold EVERYONE responsible. This isn’t a republican or democrat problem, this is all of our problem!

[-]

dirtysock47@reddit (OP)

This isn’t a republican or democrat problem, this is all of our problem!

And this is the biggest issue with gun control supporters, you ALWAYS put the onus on law abiding gun owners, and expect us to "do our part"

No, it is not all of our problem, but, because we hate it when the most innocent in society are murdered, many of us provide solutions that don't violate the rights of gun owners.

Gun control supporters reject each and every one, because it doesn't involve banning something. We're not going to become like the UK or Australia, and gun control supporters need to learn to accept that.

[-]

MooreChelsL8ly@reddit

If you don’t find children being murdered in schools YOUR problem, THEN YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. All you seem to care about are your guns. No, I don’t have children. Yes, I own a gun. But do I see an issue with gun laws that currently aren’t protect children? Abso-fucking-lutely. The onus isn’t just on law abiding gun owners, it’s on all citizens. Including myself, a gun owner. Making guns safer should be the priority. There is no reason for the general public to own bump stocks, scopes, large magazines, and (imo) ARs as well.

[-]

Nobody is anti-gun, anti-gun nuts just want all the guns concentrated in the hands of the government

[-]

The_PunX@reddit

Not a gun problem. It's a mental health problem. Maybe look into that

[-]

vulcan1358@reddit

To quote FPC: “Stack up or fuck off”

Indirect:

Strengthening and supporting two-parent households, "family values". The vast majority of children killing children occurs in lower socio-economic areas where the victims and perpetrators are from single-parent households.
Improvement of economics situation of people. People who are not desperate are less likely to commit violent acts.

What we actually need to know is whether mentally ill people are more likely to commit violent crimes than people who are not mentally ill.

Also, 'mental illness' is a very broad category. The most common mental illnesses are depression, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, OCD, PTSD, Social anxiety disorder, phobias and eating disorders.

Most of those people probably aren't any more likely to commit violent crimes than anyone else, and it is deceptive to include them under 'mental illness' in this context.

When we talk about 'mental illness' in relation to mass murder, we are not talking about people who have a phobia of spiders, or who have trouble leaving the house because they have anxiety.

[-]

MilesVanWinkleForbes@reddit

It's a good letter and a healthy time to express such sentiments. I talked to a Federal agent recently about the left trying really hard to ban guns for Americans on one side of the gun control lobby, while at the same time they are pushing for the illegal immigrants to be allowed to buy guns. He said the Harris Administration wants the aliens armed because they will shoot more people than regular Americans do, thus, allowing for more gun control in the future. They want these shootings. What just happened in Aurora, Colorado, with a clan of Teen de Aguas (a super dangerous criminal gang from Venezuela) being recorded walking around in broad daylight with guns, we can see the Harris Plan is working. All the politicians in Aurora say the gang is peaceful and the guns are legal. The Aurora politicians must be enjoying that R4V cash, the legal funding of all the Venezuela migration with US tax dollars. Research R4V, folks. This is not a migrant crisis. It is legally funded with US tax dollars. Nobody on the news will ever say R4V. Biden/Harris funded R4V. With your tax dollars.

[-]

That-Guy-Over-There8@reddit

Please post this on r/GunsAreCool

Preaching yes but you get an Amen from me!

I take the issue of gun violence in America very seriously but the lack of constructive conversations between responsible armed Americans and law makers is something that appalls me. The debate immediately goes to guns without considering issues such as mental illness and our education environment.

Even issues that some gun owners might support such as reasonable restrictions on ownership such as people with severe mental illness, that are really a 4th and 14th amendment debate get completely ignored by lawmakers. Our existing laws are shit for gun owners compared to other gun friendly countries with much lower crime rates, and lawmakers don't understand the bullshit they spit from their mouths and what we already put up with.

[-]

Murky-Sector@reddit

An open letter to gun control supporters

There aren't any here however

[-]

dirtysock47@reddit (OP)

They usually come to the pro-gun subs right after a major mass shooting, so some will probably come here.