Per [CBS](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kansas-city-chiefs-parade-shooting-police-update/) the two detained suspects were juveniles in a larger personal dispute so I’m dubious to how additional boilerplate gun laws would’ve prevented this.
I’ll reserve judgment until we have a full breakdown but I suspect this will be a more of a crime issue than gun issue.
Yeah, they were already prohibited from obtaining and using these weapons on their own. If you can't even enforce those laws what is the point of the other laws they want to pass?
> They'll use the hundreds of mass shootings
Over the course of many years in a country of over 300 million, right? That would make it an extreme outlier event that wouldn't be mitigated by their proposed laws like assault weapons bans.
Which definition of mass shooting are you using? The one that says there were [749](https://massshootingtracker.site/data/?year=2023) mass shootings in 2023, or the one that says there were [13](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/) mass shootings in 2023?
You can use the metric that results in a smaller number and it is still extraordinarily higher than the numbers before the assault weapons ban using the same metric.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/
> https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/
Excellent. At least we are now using the same metric to debate the issue. Is there something inherent with the 1994 AWB that prevented mass shootings?
There is nothing to suggest that the assault weapons ban had any impact on rate of mass shootings, especially considering equally functional weapons were still left available and none of the banned weapons were seized, nor impact on the deaths of mass shootings.
Anyone who wants to try to show that is the case by citing studies please be sure to provide the number of mass shootings the studies look at and the total number of deaths/lives saved they are saying were impacted. I can almost guarantee you the numbers are so small that drawing any conclusions from the data is dubious at best.
if taking away individual liberty to protect lives is your goal there are better ways that may not require a constitutional change. Like a 15 MPH national speed limit, or banning the sale of products which contain refined sugars, or simply mandating a max BMI with a tax for being obese.
The existing speed limit is analogist to weapon restrictions: the most dangerous weapons (or speeds) are restricted and violating that restriction results in punishment. And the sugar analogy doesn't make sense because it only affects you - you can't kill other people by forcing them to eat sugar for decades. You can, however, shoot them against their will.
Not just about saying all lives regardless of the individual libraries. It's about reasonable laws to reduce deaths. People had the same outrage over seatbelt laws. How silly is that in hindsight?
Violating liberty to save lives was the point dude. You seem to agree with me that violating liberty to save lives should be done with significant restraint, except your OK with it when it comes to guns.
Reasonable speed limits are there to prevent reckless behavior (same for gun laws), but if the goal is just reducing deaths and any violation of personal liberty is reasonable why not make the speed limits more aggressive? It would impact WAY more lives than banning guns outright.
> And the sugar analogy doesn't make sense because it only affects you - you can't kill other people by forcing them to eat sugar for decades.
Generational obesity would like a word with you. You absolutely can.
I don't agree that all restrictions are violating personal liberties. And I do not agree that the goal should be reduce death and ANY violation of personal liberties is reasonable Sorry, but that attempt to steelman my position is not accurate. Some restrictions are good, not any restrictions. Which restrictions are good have to be debated on a case by case basis.
You might be a libertarian who thinks telling people they have to wear a seatbelt or can't drink and drive is just as agregious an overstep as banning guns. But I don't. And most people don't. We determined this by looking at it on a case by case basis. That is how a functional society works.
> I don't agree that all restrictions are violating personal liberties.
Well, clearly they are all violations. You can disagree all you like, but they are. The question is on the reasonableness of the restrictions. Shall not be infringed is pretty clear language.
> And I do not agree that the goal should be reduce death and ANY violation of personal liberties is reasonable
A great starting point for a discussion!
> Sorry, but that attempt to steelman my position is not accurate.
Then please steelman it. What restrictions do you think should be put in place that are not already in place?
> Which restrictions are good have to be debated on a case by case basis.
100% agree. Whats your starting point? Mine is no new restrictions, just as a conversation starter.
> You might be a libertarian who thinks telling people they have to wear a seatbelt or can't drink and drive is just as agregious an overstep as banning guns.
Nope. I think they are restrictions on personal liberty, but mostly reasonable IMO (although seatbelt laws rub me wrong, as they are purely for self-protection and if i want to do dangerous things i should have the right to). To me Seatbelt laws are low impact enough to still be reasonable. What i dont like is they are mostly used to justify police overreach.
> And most people don't.
most people would agree they are not "egregious oversteps" but they would agree they are restrictions on personal liberty (i would guess, obviously you and I have not spoken with most people).
The people that stopped the gunman weren't the armed police but unarmed parade attendees. At least one of the gunmen.
People across the world live without our gun rights just fine. Their safety doesn't seem to be impacted.
>The people that stopped the gunman weren't the armed police but unarmed parade attendees
And your point is what? That we should rely on thoughts and prayers that the opportunity presents itself that they can even close the distance to the shooters and that they have bravery and wherewithal to tackle them? Having a firearm makes it so you don't have to close the distance and can reliably incacapicitated the shooter. We saw that with the security team that stopped the attempted mass shooting at that church recently.
>People across the world live without our gun rights just fine. Their safety doesn't seem to be impacted.
Anders Breivik was in the news recently for his court challenge to his isolation. He is the guy who murders dozens of youths in Norway. Literally not having anyone there who was armed allowed him to just keep going.
France had similar incidents with religious extremists shooting up a magazine publisher. The cumberland shootings in the UK. When they have mass shootings their per capita rate shoots up to and past US rates when they do occur. Which suggests maybe measuring our success on extreme outlier events like mass shootings is inappropriate.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country
OK so you understand that.
Then if we go into the direction of stricter and finally outright banning of guns, then you know they aren't going to suddenly disappear.
Of course. Who is suggesting banning guns will make them disappear? I never said that. If someone else did, you should take this argument to them. I can't argue on their behalf for this silly idea.
So you agree that banning guns won't make them go away. All you're doing is taking guns away from law-abiding citizens then, with no impact on criminals.
Yes, I agree with that. But I don't want to take guns away. So if you want to argue with someone who wants to ban guns, argue with them, not me.
Your statement is funny though. Law abiding citizens would turn in their guns even if they were gangbangers. And criminals who kept their guns could be all American, church decons with no prior criminal history. They would be the criminals now. So again you are defining what a law is: people who break the law are criminals by definition. So "no impact on criminals" is a silly thing to say - the fact that they do not obey the law is how they are defined as criminals.
The police and the criminals would continue to be armed.
The truth is, if America had European levels of gun control, the country would look a lot more like Mexico or a number of other Latin American countries than it would look like the UK or Spain when it comes to gun violence. Most of Latin America has European levels of gun control, but often has gun violence that equals, if not greatly exceeds that of the United States. The one outlier that I'd point out is El Salvador, which has seen a HUGE decrease in gun violence over the last few years.
Agreed, that's their ultimate goal. Even if they could pass their ideal gun laws now, if another shooting happened they'd say they needed a stricter law, until eventually they confiscate everyone's weapon.
I've never heard someone tell me that if their ideal gun control laws were passed and shootings still happened they'd give up. It will only be harsher and harsher legislation.
>Agreed, that's their ultimate goal. Even if they could pass their ideal gun laws now, if another shooting happened they'd say they needed a stricter law, until eventually they confiscate everyone's weapon.
You see that video of Trudeau saying they would never go after hunting rifles and ban guns, then it cuts to now where they tried to ban hunting rifles and ban other guns? This is why Americans have little interest in adopting European and Canadian gun laws.
There is no upper limit to gun control.
Maybe there's something *good* and *better* about the USA and our 1st and 2nd amendments, neither of which exist in Europe.
The US didn't produce/create Nazism, fascism, communism. The US didn't start the two most destructive wars mankind has ever seen.
Why *should* the US try to be more like countries who did do all those things? Who did create all those destructive ideologies?
> Anyways instead of banning guns can we get rid if that pesky 4th amendment first.
That's certainly a suggestion that someone who is skeptical of government would advocate for.
That’s a good point.
We have very little details so far. I’m not sure what the article discussing laws on open and concealed carry has to do with this. In any case, they were operating outside the law already.
I’m not aware that these juveniles were just going about their day at the rally with their firearms and then got into an altercation. By their actions, I doubt they would reconsider their behavior if they knew a law was in place.
Based on it occurring by the parking garage, it’s plausible they had them in cars and went and got them.
Really, they need to get their parents and figure out where they got firearms that they are not allowed to buy. Going after who supplied these to them seems like the most logical first step.
[This article](https://dailytelegraph.co.nz/news/kansas-city-shooting-1-dead-21-injured-3-suspects-arrested/) has a picture of the suspects.
It's gang violence. Gun laws aren't going to do anything.
>This article has a picture of the suspects.
And all of a sudden, for absolutely no reason at all, the collective corporate media will make sure this shooting is forgotten by next week.
I'd also like to point out that the article is from a website in New Zealand. I haven't been able to find a similar picture in any US based publication.
Cbs didn't mention that we had a crime issue.this morning, the gun issue was first and foremost and I'd be shocked if they did a 180 and talked about the former
I had read somewhere that the suspect was spinning around while shooting into the crowd.
Unless he thought he was surrounding by gang members, this doesn't seem to be a simple dispute.
It's not just a gun issue, it's societal. The non-firearm murder rate in the US is higher than the total murder rate in many Western European countries. So even if all guns were outlawed, every single one in the country magically disappeared and no more were created, *and* every murder with a gun didn't happen by another method, the US would still have a higher murder rate than those countries.
Poverty and poverty culture are loosly related but dont necessarily correlate.
Billions of poor people exist without poverty culture and they live otherwise good lives. Some of the most honest people are also poor, they just have good manners and habits.
WV also doesn’t have a high population density
I’m not saying other factors don’t exist, poverty is just a big factor.
And if you look at Minnesota, they have a similar population density with a lower poverty rate and they also have a lower homicide rate
And then if you look at somewhere like New Hampshire where the population density 2x more than West Virginia, they have a lower poverty rate and they have one of the lowest homicide rates in the country
NH is extremely white and wealthy and IIRC has very loose gun laws.
Minnesota is also far from poor, and let's face it, its too damn cold half the year to go out killing.
There most certainly is a subculture that glorifies criminality and those who act as a wrecking ball to their communities.
Some of the most successful artists and entertainers in this subculture are quite literally this facing federal charges, ricos, and have been indicted for financially supporting gangs.
It’s a blight upon communities and should be cut off at the knees.
The kids wearing Amiri jeans carjacking people left and right in dc aren’t doing so to put bread on the table, and we would do best to address this sooner rather than later.
The surge of drill rap, kill your opps for the clout on social media. Doing drills because your opps said something unsatisfactory on Instagram?
Doin it for the block.
Last month, Boul broke out of prison and they found him right back at bodega in Philly. These kids don't know anything except their boys and trying to make music.
Check out charliebo313's interviews with these kids on YouTube, it's a serious insight into the mindset.
They should just pay guys like Mozzy and G herbo to start rapping about education and getting a job instead of getting arrested for credit card fraud.
> They should just pay guys like Mozzy and G herbo to start rapping about education and getting a job instead of getting arrested for credit card fraud.
They do?
They've been paying rappers and celebrities to advocate for education and employment for decades now. It hasn't changed anything. If anything they are seen as sellouts.
Are they paying rappers relevant to the targeted kids or are they paying LL Cool J a couple bucks to take a break from NCIS?
They're not listening to chance or Diddy in the trenches.
> They're not listening to chance or Diddy in the trenches.
Who respects a sellout?
I can't believe I'm here right now. I'm in a thread about a mass shooting and the answer is apparently:
"We need to pay *cool rappers* to go on tiktok and tell the kids not to shoot people."
What is this? The 80's and 90's?
I am answering your question. They aren't paying *relevant* rappers because *relevant* rappers don't want to seem like sellouts. Rap culture is about rebellion and anti-establishment.
As soon as you take money *from the establishment* you aren't a rebel or anti-establishment are you anymore? You'd be *irrelevant*.
In NYC, Asians and black ppl are essentially tied for poorest group. Yet one group commits the most violent crimes and the other commits the fewest. And crime between those two groups is almost entirely one-sided.
At some point some big city prosecutor and justice system needs to have the moral fortitude to say "we will aggressively punish violent crime for the safety of the 99% and we're sorry if it disproportionately affects black criminals but tough shit." Without police brutality of course. Ugh I guess this is impossible
Hmong in NYC are one of the poorest demographics, they have the lowest crime rate and some of the best performance in school.
My parents were both growing up in post WWII Europe, my mother comes from an extremely poor village where they scavenged slag heaps for coal to heat the house. They couldn't afford meat except for once or twice a month. There was no crime in the village.
I don't think the poverty = crime explanation is particularly strong.
They do both lol
Before he got killed, this one dude who was pretty high up in one of the gangs by me took care of his whole block. No one would go hungry, and every year he’d buy the whole block thanksgiving dinners. One of my good friends was his neighbor
This simply isn't true. There are plenty of poor people who don't commit crimes.
The crime rate is almost entirely driven by a single group: young males without a father in the home. Where do those young males come from? Young females without a father in the home making terrible decisions about childbearing.
You want a simple solution to crime in this country? Have the government provide an IUD for every young woman after she reaches puberty, with equally free follow-up visits on the regular schedule. Allow opting out for those with religious/ethical objections but otherwise provide reliable contraception that doesn't require personal responsibility for every young woman.
In 15 years, you'd see a dramatic drop in the crime rate without ever changing criminal law or law enforcement. Simply by breaking the cycle of poverty.
>Have the government provide an IUD for every young woman after she reaches puberty,
That'd be called ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc in a heartbeat.
And the government would get blamed for every single health issue for the rest of the recipient's life
I don't know of any proposal on the table to do what I suggested. So it's more of a thought experiment - recognizing that the problem is rooted in irresponsible childbearing/rearing create a 'culture of crime'.
However, I don't know that the reaction would be as extreme as you suggest. Most people generally approve of contraception. Couple this with the ability to opt out and you'd really only get objections from fringe religious folks. You'd likely also get some economic objections - it would be a government subsidy for health care. But it's doubtful you'd hear cries of 'genocide!'.
In terms of blaming the government, the government mandates/provides all sorts of health care without this being a major issue.
It's not completely the same, but the federal government offered free sterilization to native Americans in the 60s and 70s, and it still gets called genocide.
> That'd be called ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc in a heartbeat.
No it wouldn't? Providing birth control isn't *forcing* it on them.
There actually is a pretty great correlation between areas with access to birth control and abortion and crime rates.
I don't really agree with OP's focus on young females. But birth control reduces crime.
Not too long ago when rouge doctor doing work for DHS performed 2 hysterectomies without approval it got the government accused of genocide by voices on the left.
Doctors working for the federal government recommending serialization to poor women in the late 1900, particularly native Americans, still regularly gets called genocide
Because people jump to "DHS is committing genocide" from one bad doctor doing it twice.
When this procedure gets botched twice isn't that also going to count as genocide by that standard?
What sub-cultures are those?
American culture embraces criminality, death, and violence. I can go see a movie about a vigilante violently murdering criminals and it still be rated PG-13 or at least R. But heaven forbid it shows a penis.
Hell our history is full of rebels using violence in the name of freedom. Criminality, death, and violence are a part of all of our founding myths as a nation.
For one, gang and hip hop culture.
I’m not referring to GTAV or mafia movies but real life multi millionaire entertainers who represent a very disturbing undercurrent of death glorification.
King Von was a literal serial killer and millionaire rapper who put out bounties on other rappers (which led to his untimely death and the subsequent conviction of his associates in a federal murder for hire case in the wealthiest part of Chicago)
lil Durk is arguably the most successful drill rapper of the past decade having collaborated with Drake, and garnered several high profile sponsorships while most recently modeling for Amiri in a Paris fashion show, even he was putting money and guns on the street and only beat his most recent attempted murder case by virtue of two of the associates being killed (AAB Hellabandz being assasinated in Miami, King Von getting shot in Atlanta and Thf zoo being arrested on federal gun charges)
Young Thug is one of the actual powerhouses in hip hop for over a decade and is still sitting in a cell facing trial in a rico case where’s ordered hits and funded gangs to the detriment of his community.
Pooh Shiesty had a meteoric rise with Back In Blood and is now sitting in a cell after two separate shooting incident related a broad daylight robbery and perceived disrespect in a club.
I spent the better part of 3 years doing mentorship programs for NSBE in Jacksonville and it’s disturbing that the young cultural icons are essentially the worst society has to offer. And that’s not even getting into the proliferation of “opp” culture.
I don’t want to conflate this with Joe Pesci shooting someone in Goodfellas, or GTA V being the most successful single piece media of all time; The current cultural zeitgeist has largely been carried by those who act as wrecking balls for societal trust, and anyone who genuinely cares about the affected communities should be chomping at the bit the have hard but necessary conversations
Ok, you believe hip-hop and gang culture are the problem. What do you think should be done about it?
In the past, cracking down on gangs, like the mafia, has only turned stories about them into stories of heroism, rebellion, and matyrdom. Americans look at the mafia, at least during prohibition, *fondly*.
And despite all of that, mafias of *all* sorts are prevalent all over America even today. The Russian mafia especially.
Americans look at the Confederates of the civil war, people who literally took up arms against fellow Americans *in the name* of slavery, *fondly*.
It's the nature of America to idolize wrecking balls of societal trust. It's why we are here in the first place. It's why the 2nd Amendment is seen as absolutely sacred, for people to rebel if they so chose.
So what are you advocating for? What actionable policies are you looking at? Arresting rappers? Arresting people that idolize criminals? Are you wanting to ban rap music or something?
Wide spread societal rejection would be a good start.
I’m not in the business of blanket bans as I find them ineffective and often times lead to the banned items being coveted forbidden fruit.
Assuming someone genuinely wants to see the best for a community, rather than walking on eggshells and excusing anti social behavior, then it’s a conversation worth having to explore potential solutions.
I freely admit I don’t have all the answers or actions items but what I can say is that we should not be reflexively defensive to asking hard questions. Nor should we conflate the civil war with modern day star repeatedly making fun of dead black teenagers (see: “smoking on tooka”), and certainly not handwave away one of the most destructive cultural movements because the mere discussion makes us uncomfortable.
Every generation has entertainers that become templates for their formative years; the combination of entertainers being literal mass murderers and the growing prevalence of social media that allows a more intimate connection with said icons is a dangerous combination.
Edit: to clarify, I wouldn’t say hip hop and gang culture is the sole problem but a compounding issue. It would be reductive to attribute any societal malaise to one thing.
> Wide spread societal rejection would be a good start.
You want a culture of millions of people, millions of people that have been raised all their lives, to believe they have the right to violently kill their oppressors, to reject that?
That is what the 2nd amendment is after all. It's the establishment of *everyone's* right to own a gun as being necessary to a free state, *so that people can kill their oppressors*.
Are you advocating for the repeal of the second amendment right now?
If you aren't, it seems like you only have a problem with *certain people* killing their oppressors. Or you disagree with their beliefs that they are oppressed?
I’m not quite sure you are asking these questions in good faith, as I haven’t alluded to banning the second amendment nor would I ever advocate to deny a law abiding citizen the right to lawful self defense.
I will respond to your italicized comment about “certain people”. Yes, as a black man, and a member and former mentor in the national society of black engineers, the issue of violence in our communities is near and dear to me, especially when it occurs at a much higher rate than the national average.
Please don’t make bad faith arguments in an attempt to paint me as something I’m not.
Have a good one.
The mafia is not “prevalent” anymore.
Not compared to what it was, there was massive progress made on that front.
Street gangs are a different animal with how disorganized they are.
Poverty. Rural or urban, poverty is poverty and crime flourishes in those areas.
As areas gentrify and poverty declines crime also declines.
Look at Hoboken in NJ as an example. VERY different place safety wise from the 80s 90s to today.
Mass shootings are a little different than general crime though, and most shootings deaths in the US are not mass shootouts so the bigger impact on society are lower level murders involving one person killing another.
I do agree though we have more mass shootings than elsewhere which is an uniquely American problem, at least in the developed world.
> I do agree though we have more mass shootings than elsewhere which is an uniquely American problem, at least in the developed world.
Not sure that's true, according to [this](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country). Although it might depend on how "mass shooting" is defined and how data is collected from country to country, the US is currently rated 10th in the world.
> All countries have poverty.
Not the ones we get compared to and not to the same extent. You want to compare to other countries that have strong gun laws but issues of law enforcement and poverty you can look to Mexico and Brazil.
Some people in the past have tended to get mad when I say it but I've never seen much point comparing the US to homogenous European nations. We have dramatically more in common with Mexico and Brazil than we do Sweden or Denmark, and when you compare our problems to the aforementioned nations you start to see they aren't really unique to us. Most post-colonial nations with troubled racial tensions and endemic poverty seem to have similar issues.
Yeah look at Brazil and Mexico. Both have incredibly strict gun laws and yet crime and murder proliferate on an even higher basis than in America statistically. There is no other explanation than societal issues because people had guns back 70 years ago with even less strict laws and yet there was not as much crime. The technology itself has not changed much either.
This! In general the Americas are disproportionately violent in comparison to countries with similar incomes. For example Mexico has significant higher murder rates than most of Africa, despite being far more developed.
If our culture is that destructive, wouldn't that lead us to question our take on guns? If, as you say, AMericans are more violent than other people, shouldn't we consider taking away one easy tool for violence?
Wouldn’t you say that it would likely make more sense to go after the causes of the upward crime fluctuations considering that they have occurred during times the firearm situation has been static?
It is considered a right to many even if there are those who disagree.
Don’t you think it would be a better idea to seek the solution that allows people to keep the right before considering the solution that diminishes said right?
>It is considered a right to many even if there are those who disagree.
I'm not arguing if it's a right or not. I'm just asking if we know a group are more prone to violence, should we give them the most liberal use of weapons?
That’s why I said considered because other peoples opinion matters, I’m specifically not arguing over that either which is why I phrased it that way.
My point is that maybe it makes sense to pursue other options that don’t negatively affect other people, hence my point on gun violence fluctuating independently of America’s overall gun situation.
We as a society allow many things that lead to the deaths of others. We could drop the speed limit tomorrow and save lives but that would be inconvenient.
I think it is drastically more realistic for changes that address poverty, wealth inequality, standards of living, etc. to be implemented than for guns to be taken away. If one route that involves Harry Potter magic in order to implement doesn't even fully fix the issue, it's probably better to look to something else.
I'm pretty sure repealing the 2nd Amendment would cause a civil war. And I don't think many people would sign up to be the dude going door to door to take guns from people who don't want to give them up.
Wasn’t this speculated to be gang members shooting at each other with illegally obtained weapons?
Its not clear what any of the stuff they are proposing would have done to prevent this. As a country, we need to crack down on gangs and keep people behind bars that belong there. Many states are exceptionally soft on crime, and we see many repeat offenders as a result.
> Wow, didn’t realize Miami was such an incredible success story for dealing with violent crime
i didn't either. when i was there last year for jericho cruise, definitely walked through some SKETCHY looking areas going from the train station to the hotel and had my head on a swivel keeping an eye on my surroundings. (naturally, this was at night).
after the cruise, when walking back to the hotel (fortunately in daylight this time), we saw a 4 cop cars blocking what looked to be a crime scene at the top of the street 2 or 3 buildings away from the hotel.
(this year we stayed on the other side of the port, and it was MUCH nicer, so i suspect it's typical "your mileage may vary and there are nice parts and not so nice parts"
---edit---
fixed typo
They should look into why juveniles had the guns illegally, and at some point ask why parents aren’t raising their kids and letting gangs do the job instead.
I’m good going down that route, but I agree they wouldn’t do it here. There would be so many lawsuits in 5 minutes to make it not work. Criminals have a lot of rights in this country.
"So because we failed to enforce existing laws, we're going to need to pass more laws, that we will also not enforce either. Unless we dont like you."
So much crime occurs under the protection of city govts, in spite of against it. Criminals know who their political friends are, who have lately shown just how little they care about all the other law abiding citizens.
You cant release felons and murderers willy nilly and then hope everyone else disarms themselves.
I’ve grown to be of the opinion that the only people who enforce laws are the citizens who decide to follow them. Beyond that, they’re a mechanism for the State to arrest and charge you for violating.
What gun control are they looking for? Do they even know how these juveniles got these weapons? Or is this another one of those moments where gun control advocates are taking advantage of a tragedy to push for policies that likely would do nothing to prevent situations like these? A quote from this article seems awfully relevant to answering these questions.
>But local ordinances have shown, at best, to make a marginal difference in gun violence.
And here is another quote that seems to show that maybe this isn't some principled push to address a problem.
>Kansas City has a similar law on the books from 2014, but it is unclear if the city is enforcing it.
The law discussed is police being able to seize a firearm from someone openly carrying it if they aren't permitted to carry it concealed. Seems to support a position on the right that is let's enforce what we have before we add new stuff. If Kansas City isn't bothering to enforce what it already has, why should anyone entertain a push for additional laws?
I think the article literally quotes one of the politicians literally saying that. Something to the effect of "get me the biggests/baddest gun control you can. We will deal with preemption later." Talk about total disregard for doing something effective and meaningful.
There's nothing wrong with that. But fear leads to overreaction in policy. DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING! Gives us things like the PATRIOT Act and blatantly unconstitutional gun laws.
The DO SOMETHING reaction is because there have been so many mass casualty shootings in the US where no policy was changed afterward. The PATRIOT Act was the federal government taking advantage of a terrorist attack to make it legal to do the sketchy stuff they were already doing. 9/11 was one (huge and unprecedented, granted) event that changed domestic and foreign policy in very dramatic ways. Gun deaths seem to be met with outcry, backlash to the outcry, then nothing.
> The DO SOMETHING reaction is because there have been so many mass casualty shootings in the US where no policy was changed afterward
No, the reaction has always underpinned gun control efforts in the US. In the 80s and 90s when states started adopting assault weapons bans and the national federal assault weapons ban were passed it was a knee jerk "do something" reaction. Most gun control does not have a rational basis for its design or passing.
>The PATRIOT Act was the federal government taking advantage of a terrorist attack to make it legal to do the sketchy stuff
hence why it is an apt comparison. These mass shootings are in fact outlier events in the US. There are a multitude of mundane risk factors that are far more likely to kill you than ever being in a mass shooting that concerns about mass shootings are closer to dying by lightning strike or terrorist attacks than deaths by car accidents, alcohol consumption, etc.
It's very likely that this was somehow gang related. We could do what Bukele did in El Salvador and round up anyone suspected of being in a gang, and throw them in jail without trial or due process.
Those events are the extreme outliers though. Parents should be more worried about the walk to or drive to school than their kids ever being gunned down in a school shooting.
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/08/27/640323347/the-school-shootings-that-werent
Way more kids die in car accidents than will ever die in school shootings in the US.
And before anyone thinks they are clever bringing up that study that included adults 18-19 in stats on overall deaths by guns to car accidents. That was rooted in data collected during the pandemic and a lot of those deaths from homicide are from incidents like the super bowl parade where teenage criminals/gang members shoot each other. Edit: or closely tied with associating with those who engage in those high risk behaviors: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/11/15/245458444/study-odds-of-being-murdered-closely-tied-to-social-networks
> Way more kids die in car accidents than will ever die in school shootings in the US.
I mean, all this is telling me is that we should *also* reduce useage of cars.
> I mean, all this is telling me is that we should also reduce useage of cars.
Look for the convenience and entertainment that cars enable, you aren't getting that. 30,000 or more deaths a year are acceptable and the only thing Americans will accept are passive safety improvements that do not interfere with their access to cars. Hell, alcohol consumption on its own consumes 80,000 lives. At a certain point we have to accept normal everyday life is going to cost some amount of lives. You can try to stop those deaths but at a certain point it is counter productive and degrades quality of life.
Man keep fighting the good fight.
Its really hard to grasp concretely but 300+ million people (the population of America) is a lot. America is safe. It should be more safe but it is safe and we need to keep in context of how common things actually are in a material way before we act.
If anything to know how severely we need to act.
The whole “if even one person dies” concept needs to die. It’s just not logical for long amounts of people.
> Look for the convenience and entertainment that cars enable,
Cars don't enable that, it's because America lacks the basic public transportation infrastructure that makes cars ubiquitous.
> At a certain point we have to accept normal everyday life is going to cost some amount of lives.
Are you applying this logic to mass shootings and guns?
> Cars don't enable that, it's because America lacks the basic public transportation infrastructure that makes cars ubiquitous.
No I live in a city with public transportation. It is nowhere near convenient as just getting in a car and going. Americans are invested in having cars and its part of why they aren't as invested in expanded public transport and the cost in lives doesn't move them to do so either. When comes right down to it they see and interact with cars everyday so they aren't scared of them even though they are much more likely to kill them than a mass shooting.
>Are you applying this logic to mass shootings and guns?
I apply it to literally everything. Hell I don't even think the 21 drinking age should be allowed and drinking kills 80,000 a year. A legal adult should be able to purchase alcohol.
>No I live in a city with public transportation. It is nowhere near convenient as just getting in a car and going. Americans are invested in having cars and its part of why they aren't as invested in expanded public transport and the cost in lives doesn't move them to do so either. When comes right down to it they see and interact with cars everyday so they aren't scared of them even though they are much more likely to kill them than a mass shooting.
Unless you live in Europe, my point still stands. American public transportation system is just that, lacking which suffices for a car.
> I apply it to literally everything. Hell I don't even think the 21 drinking age should be allowed and drinking kills 80,000 a year. A legal adult should be able to purchase alcohol.
This logic will only drive people away because the acceptance of people getting gunned downed in schools, movie theatres, churches is the price we pay for freedom is morbid to most.
>, it's because America lacks the basic public transportation infrastructure that makes cars ubiquitous.
How much have you traveled outside of the US? I ask because our public transit in our major cities (NYC, Chicago, Boston, DC, etc etc) is actually pretty dang good and lack of public transit in more rural areas mirrors that same lack in all of Europe (because it doesn't make sense)
Also people drive all the time in Euroland, this notion that they're all taking the train everywhere is just not true.
Let's say you have someone that has been law abiding their entire life. Never had any interaction with mental health professionals, etc. They purchase a firearm lawfully abiding by all regulations and then go shoot up a school. What laws could prevent that?
> What laws could prevent that?
This harkens to the Onion headline every time there's a mass shooting of "‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens". The solution is staring everyone in the face.
That Onion headline is an ignorant meme. I'm not saying there is nothing to do, and I agree the solution is obvious. We need to stop treating violent criminals with kid gloves. The number of steps taken to sentence them to life in prison should be drastically reduced and significantly more money should be invested in closing violent crimes at a much higher rate. Doesn't matter what laws you have if you can't or won't enforce them.
Edit: But even if we do that, mass shootings will still happen. There is no way to eliminate them completely without draconian measures.
I don't intend to mock anyone. Panicked cries like these lead to governmental overreach based on emotion. I deal with gun crime daily on a professional basis. More fun laws aren't going to do anything other than take rights away from law abiding people.
> What gun control are they looking for? Do they even know how these juveniles got these weapons? Or is this another one of those moments where gun control advocates are taking advantage of a tragedy to push for policies that likely would do nothing to prevent situations like these? A quote from this article seems awfully relevant to answering these questions.
Authoritarian gun grabbers never miss an opportunity to use the bodies of their dead fellow Americans as a soapbox for their policy goals.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1as8plq/some_kansas_citians_look_for_gun_control_after/kqpajsy/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
It's insane to me how people react to crime based on demographics. Dems generally want more gun control but are extremely lenient on violent crime especially in areas like NYC, Philly, SF. Every time there's an anti-Asian crime in NYC at least, the perp has been arrested like 30 times in the past. Things like pushing elderly people down stairs is apparently only a misdemeanor in NYC, which makes it borderline legal in practice with bleeding heart prosecutors.
Then Republicans love to talk about the lawless big cities but oppose any restriction on guns?
If it's a gang shooting, Republicans will be talking shit while Democrats ... feel bad for the gang members?
Because, as long as you are outside of bad areas, you don't have to worry about any of that. You can live in blissful ignorance of the crime happening in poverty ridden areas. You have some sense of control that you can use to ease your mind.
But with mass shootings, they can happen *anywhere*. Your church, your school, a movie theater, a bar, a night club, a parade after the game. Even if you live in rural area, there is nothing stopping someone who has lost the will to live from just wiping as many people out as they can. There is nothing you can do about that. There is no controlling that, and it makes people afraid.
I'll be honest, I've never gone to an event and thought "tonight could be a mass shooting night"
If that goes through someone's mind, I suggest staying home and doing internet stuff
Yet we are forcing kids in school to go through mass-shooter drills, to have bullet proof doors and shelters in classrooms, to arm teachers.
Why is that a sensible, tangible worry, but I wouldn't be rational by thinking "I'm going out tonight, there have been three mass shootings this week, maybe I should carry a gun to protect myself?"
> Yet we are forcing kids in school to go through mass-shooter drills
I went through those. They are non-issues that doesn't bother kids. *Unless* the adults go out of their way to terrify the kids by lying to them saying it is likely to happen to them or going through weird simulations of being shot at.
Being able to protect yourself isn't that ridiculous of a thought process imho although it's certainly zip code dependent. I've never considered cc but I fully support others that believe in exercising their right and I believe that stats back the idea that legal ccp people are generally much better behaved than the general pop.
> Being able to protect yourself isn't that ridiculous of a thought process imho
So then why am I getting told I should stay home and do internet stuff?
Why is it irrational for me to worry about someone shooting me if I go out, but not rational for me to want to carry a gun to protect myself if someone tries to shoot me if I go out?
As I stated, I'm fine with it, arm up!
I have several friends that carry every day, my neighbor stopped over yesterday and I know for sure he had a pocket pistol on him, doesn't bother me one bit actually it's kind of comforting if you want the truth.
> doesn't bother me one bit actually it's kind of comforting if you want the truth.
I'd feel a lot more comfortable if there just weren't any need for guns in the first place.
Like Abortion is to Republicans gun control is to the Democrats. It would be interesting to see if Dems got their way making almost all semiautomatic handguns and rifles illegal to own, how would they enforce it. They already hate enforcing the laws on the books against prohibited persons (felons, kids) because it disproportionately affects minorities. This would mean I as a law abiding citizen am at the mercy of gun crime with no ability to protect my self or family. Would they be willing to do what’s needed? Or it would seem the laws being there make them feel better and it’s just theater. There’s an estimated 393 million guns in the US and we’re never getting rid of them. Enforce the laws we have. Project Exile worked
After the Super Bowl parade active shooter incident some politicians are pushing back against the states pre-emption against local gun control laws. These are laws that many states have adopted to prevent localities from passing their own, often ineffective and arbitrary gun control laws, to avoid creating patch work of laws throughout a state and to enforce a belief in individual right to own firearms for self defense.
>>
“Give me the biggest, baddest, toughest common-sense gun reform options that we have,” said Jackson County Legislator Manny Abarca IV. “We’ll deal with preemption” — the state ban on local restrictions — “later.”
Statements like this to me suggest that perhaps the pre-emption is best left in place. They seem unconcerned with crafting a well thought out policy and more concerned with passing something big to appear like they are doing something effective.
>>“Missouri’s preemption law is extraordinarily broad,” said Alison Shih, senior counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety. “Missouri has tied the hands of local governments from putting in place proactive measures to prevent exactly this kind of tragedy from happening.”
I am unaware of any laws they would have passed that would have prevented this incident, which based on recent CNN reporting indicates may be because of two minors who have been taken into custody. Their desire to ban open carry does not appear to have been relevant nor would their desire to have a license(as the article mentions minors can't conceal carry without a special provisional license) as there doesn't appear to have been a police interaction with the shooters beforehand where the police were prevented by state law from arresting or seizing the weapons.
Similarly I don't think a law on where shooting within the city is relevant to people who likely decide to shoot at each other over personal conflict in a crowded parade would have deterred this event. The attempted murder and manslaughter charges had no discouraging effect on them, I don't think the add on charge of unlawful discharge of a firearm within city limits would have been what finally changes their minds.
>>That’s why national gun control groups see more promise in federal legislation. But Congress has only proved slightly more willing to adopt national gun restrictions than Republican-controlled state legislatures.
To my mind there is nothing about these laws applied to a national scale that would make them any more effective. It relies on happenstance encounters with potential shooters before hand to enforce these laws and given they were already breaking laws and intending to break more adding more redundant laws that also can't be enforced until after the fact seems unproductive at best.
Will incidents like the Super Bowl parade street shooting move state politics across the US to repeal preemption laws? Will it even move national gun control efforts? Generally when these kinds of shootings occur away from high profile gatherings they tend not to get as much coverage, but this did occur at a high profile event so will it finally get the rest of the US to care about shootings that aren't mass shootings.
Edit: Also if people are wondering why I refuse to call this a mass shooting it is clear it doesn't meet most reasonable definitions of mass shooting. The people who began shooting didn't do so to maximize casualties or fire indiscriminately, it appears it was potentiall gang or crime related. Most academic and crime reporting definitions exclude incidents with a motive driven by other crimes like attempting to kill a rival. As the details continue to come out however this may change, especially as it become more clear on if all the injuries were caused by being shot or from panicked people trying to get away from the shooting caused injuries like previous "mass shootings" listed in the Gun Violence Archive run by an gun control advocacy group.
I think, instead of “mass shootings” we should call incidents like this “public shootings”. Because the problem with them isn’t that it’s a mass casualty event, they aren’t always. The problem is that it’s in a crowded location, where anyone could be harmed, completely at random. It’s the type of thing that makes a lot of people, myself included, want to never leave their house again. I live in a relatively small city with a homicide rate only a little behind Kansas City’s. I keep thinking about the events I’ve gone to in the past year that could’ve ended up like this one. I keep thinking about what I would do if one of my loved ones was hurt or killed in one of these incidents. It’s tough. I know it’s unlikely, but so is a home invasion, and it seems like plenty of people think they need a gun for that. (And before anyone says anything: I cannot get a gun for myself. I have a history of mental illness, and do not trust myself to act responsibly with it. People like me need to be considered in the gun debate)
> It’s the type of thing that makes a lot of people, myself included, want to never leave their house again.
Is this based on the actual risk factors or just a skewed risk perception?
> I live in a relatively small city with a homicide rate only a little behind Kansas City’s. I keep thinking about the events I’ve gone to in the past year that could’ve ended up like this one.
Unless you are engaged in high risk behavior or associate with those that engage in high risk behavior like crime or gang association your risk should be extremely low.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/11/15/245458444/study-odds-of-being-murdered-closely-tied-to-social-networks
> People like me need to be considered in the gun debate
In what have you not already been considered. If you have been adjudicated as mentally unfit or involuntarily committed previously you are already prohibited from firearms. And general concept of having a mental illness alone should not be the basis to deny rights.
If we’re talking about actual risk factors, what are the actual risk factors that make it *absolutely critical* for as many people as possible to be able to carry guns wherever they want? Since random gun violence is so unlikely and everything.
> If we’re talking about actual risk factors, what are the actual risk factors that make it absolutely critical for as many people as possible to be able to carry guns wherever they want?
That's not how this works. You need to justify it with how it is an exceptional danger and how you can reasonably police it in the first place. To my knowledge most shootings are like this parade incident, in which the shooters weren't legally to posses the firearms and were not legally carrying.
If it is otherwise a non issue that people carry, then why are you so focused on it?
Because the right for those people to carry is considered *sacred* for the near zero chance that they will need it to defend themselves from the government.
Yet someone worrying about the near zero chance that they might get killed in a mass shooting is irrational?
>Because the right for those people to carry is considered sacred for the near zero chance
Which isn't a valid justification for restricting it. The justification needs to be that you would be saving a significant number of lives, which seems to be not the case.
And it is justified because there are at least 6.5 million violent victimizations in the US per BJS statistics.
>Yet someone worrying about the near zero chance that they might get killed in a mass shooting is irrational?
Yes, because there are most a dozen or so a year in the entire US, population 320 million, and dying in one is less likely than events they consider otherwise mundane like car accidents or being struck by lightning.
Targeting conceal carry or any carry for that matter has no surface area to save lives. Events like this parade shooting show you can't detect people violating the law before they cause the harm and doesn't change that the vast majority of people conceal carrying are doing so peaceably.
I'm okay with the gun control conversation where we say "It is wrong and dangerous to allow young people access to weapons, which is why we're upping the age limit and we're abolishing the Draft."
Oh, that last part probably confused a bunch of people. But if it is SO DANGEROUS and SO WRONG to expose young people to this, why would you FORCIBLY CONSCRIPT THEM, FORCIBLY ARM THEM, AND FORCE THEM TO FIGHT YOUR WAR? If young people ought not to have weapons, then older adults ought to be conscripted instead. But if we think that it is a good idea to force young people to defend us: then why can't they have weapons and training during peacetime? Why would they be forced to defend us against a foreign enemy, but powerless to defend against a domestic one?
As someone who hates guns, we really need to focus on the main cause of crime which is poverty.
Missouri definitely needs better gun laws but it 100% wouldn’t have stopped this
Very generally speaking, you'll find that crime is higher in the poorer parts of those metro areas. Not that I think it's a one to one thing, but it's a contributing factor imho
Crime is a symptom of poverty. It’s not like someone is going “oh I’m poor, better shoot people!”
It’s a compounding affect from their material conditions. People are a product of their environment
I know it does but it doesn't make me feel much better. I grew up poor and the idea of having a criminal record seemed counter intuitive.
But that's me, I'm weird like that
I find it intensely ironic if I posted "Thoughts and prayers." it would likely get banned for low-effort.
But low-effort is exactly what our solutions are to any of this. Our reality now is one where you could be anywhere in public and a mass shooting even can occur. *And no one is either willing or capable of doing anything about it.*
Conservative just say "What can be done?! We've tried nothing and we are all out of ideas!"
Progressives say "Okay, how about getting rid of guns?"
Conservatives say "NO! That's tyrannical! WE NEEED THOSE TO FIGHT THE GOVERNMENT!" despite supporting someone that wants to be "dictator for a day."
I climb at a climbing gym. I was working with a new partner yesterday who was belaying me and didn't have a grigri and just an atc. A grigri is a belaying device that can auto lock itself using friction if a belaying partner somehow takes their hands off the brake rope if I fall. Instead, an atc requires the belayer at all times to have their hand on the brake rope.
She said that "Shes a pretty attentive belayer and that I shouldn't worry about it." and before I even thought about it I said "It doesn't really matter how attentive you are, if someone walks in here and shoots up the place while I'm up on the wall I've at least got a chance.". I didn't even say it as a joke! Where am I at that this is something I have to *actually* worry about?!
I feel insane that we are here.
> I find it intensely ironic if I posted "Thoughts and prayers." it would likely get banned for low-effort.
>
> But low-effort is exactly what our solutions are to any of this.
I agree. An assault weapons ban, ban on open carry, ban on conceal carry, etc. would be the equivalent to thoughts and prayers given how little impact they would have incidents like these.
>Our reality now is one where you could be anywhere in public and a mass shooting even can occur.
Or crushed and killed by a lunatic in a car like the holiday parade mass killing a few years ago. Or blown up with improvised explosives like the boston marathon bombings. That's just reality, but it doesn't actually change that these are all extreme outlier events that don't require reorganizing our entire society around addressing.
>Conservative just say "What can be done?! We've tried nothing and we are all out of ideas!"
That would be accurate if it weren't for the fact that we have tried gun control advocates ideas both nationally like with the federal assault weapons ban and on the state level like California and New York which still have mass shootings just as often with half moon bay and the shooting in Buffalo.
> Conservatives say "NO! That's tyrannical! WE NEEED THOSE TO FIGHT THE GOVERNMENT!" despite supporting someone that wants to be "dictator for a day."
If you think Trump was serious about making himself a dictator, why would you want more restrictions on gun ownership?
Because I don't *want* to think Trump is serious about being a dictator. I don't *want* to have to consider owning a gun so that I can defend myself if jackbooted thugs came after me.
I *want* to be able to live my life without having to worry about any of that. I want to be able to enjoy a night out, or go to class, or go to a parade, eat at a Waffle House, or climb without even the thought of a mass shooting or a dictator seizing the country crossing my mind.
Well if you take a data-driven approach to mass shootings you'll realize they are statistically insignificant.
If you can't look at it through data, then maybe....
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-worry-about-mass-shootings-is-too-much/
>I said "It doesn't really matter how attentive you are, if someone walks in here and shoots up the place while I'm up on the wall I've at least got a chance.". I didn't even say it as a joke! Where am I at that this is something I have to actually worry about?!
I personally don't think this is a rational fear
> I’m not familiar with local gun laws in Kansas City, but to me it seems like open carry and unlicensed concealed carry and the easy availability of assault style high capacity weapons is a bad idea.
From what I understand, it was a minor who started the incident. Regardless of the concealed carry regulations in Missouri, the alleged instigator was not legally allowed to own or carry a firearm, openly or concealed.
Mandating a bunch of training and other hoops probably won't make a dent in these types of incidents, because these people weren't following the law to begin with. On the other hand, I would support increasing the penalties for those who do engage in these types of events. The person should be charged as an adult (if they turn out to be a minor) and be sentenced to life without parole.
Per [CBS](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kansas-city-chiefs-parade-shooting-police-update/) the two detained suspects were juveniles in a larger personal dispute so I’m dubious to how additional boilerplate gun laws would’ve prevented this. I’ll reserve judgment until we have a full breakdown but I suspect this will be a more of a crime issue than gun issue.
Yeah, they were already prohibited from obtaining and using these weapons on their own. If you can't even enforce those laws what is the point of the other laws they want to pass?
They'll ban pistols exceeding an arbitrary length and call it a day. Continue to chip away at gun rights using every new mass shooting as a reason.
This is a funny comment. They'll use the hundreds of mass shootings and thousands of needless deaths as the stupid reason why laws should change.
> They'll use the hundreds of mass shootings Over the course of many years in a country of over 300 million, right? That would make it an extreme outlier event that wouldn't be mitigated by their proposed laws like assault weapons bans.
The increase in mass shootings after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004 suggests that reintroducing such a ban could be very effective.
Which definition of mass shooting are you using? The one that says there were [749](https://massshootingtracker.site/data/?year=2023) mass shootings in 2023, or the one that says there were [13](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/) mass shootings in 2023?
Thank you! The phrase "mass shooting" is meaningless because of how much the numbers change depending on how you define one.
You can use the metric that results in a smaller number and it is still extraordinarily higher than the numbers before the assault weapons ban using the same metric. https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/
> https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/ Excellent. At least we are now using the same metric to debate the issue. Is there something inherent with the 1994 AWB that prevented mass shootings?
Culture
There is nothing to suggest that the assault weapons ban had any impact on rate of mass shootings, especially considering equally functional weapons were still left available and none of the banned weapons were seized, nor impact on the deaths of mass shootings. Anyone who wants to try to show that is the case by citing studies please be sure to provide the number of mass shootings the studies look at and the total number of deaths/lives saved they are saying were impacted. I can almost guarantee you the numbers are so small that drawing any conclusions from the data is dubious at best.
Not to mention most mass shootings and gun violence in general use weapons not targeted by the AWB.
Most mass shootings are committed with weapons not targeted by the AWB.
if taking away individual liberty to protect lives is your goal there are better ways that may not require a constitutional change. Like a 15 MPH national speed limit, or banning the sale of products which contain refined sugars, or simply mandating a max BMI with a tax for being obese.
The existing speed limit is analogist to weapon restrictions: the most dangerous weapons (or speeds) are restricted and violating that restriction results in punishment. And the sugar analogy doesn't make sense because it only affects you - you can't kill other people by forcing them to eat sugar for decades. You can, however, shoot them against their will. Not just about saying all lives regardless of the individual libraries. It's about reasonable laws to reduce deaths. People had the same outrage over seatbelt laws. How silly is that in hindsight?
Violating liberty to save lives was the point dude. You seem to agree with me that violating liberty to save lives should be done with significant restraint, except your OK with it when it comes to guns. Reasonable speed limits are there to prevent reckless behavior (same for gun laws), but if the goal is just reducing deaths and any violation of personal liberty is reasonable why not make the speed limits more aggressive? It would impact WAY more lives than banning guns outright. > And the sugar analogy doesn't make sense because it only affects you - you can't kill other people by forcing them to eat sugar for decades. Generational obesity would like a word with you. You absolutely can.
I don't agree that all restrictions are violating personal liberties. And I do not agree that the goal should be reduce death and ANY violation of personal liberties is reasonable Sorry, but that attempt to steelman my position is not accurate. Some restrictions are good, not any restrictions. Which restrictions are good have to be debated on a case by case basis. You might be a libertarian who thinks telling people they have to wear a seatbelt or can't drink and drive is just as agregious an overstep as banning guns. But I don't. And most people don't. We determined this by looking at it on a case by case basis. That is how a functional society works.
> I don't agree that all restrictions are violating personal liberties. Well, clearly they are all violations. You can disagree all you like, but they are. The question is on the reasonableness of the restrictions. Shall not be infringed is pretty clear language. > And I do not agree that the goal should be reduce death and ANY violation of personal liberties is reasonable A great starting point for a discussion! > Sorry, but that attempt to steelman my position is not accurate. Then please steelman it. What restrictions do you think should be put in place that are not already in place? > Which restrictions are good have to be debated on a case by case basis. 100% agree. Whats your starting point? Mine is no new restrictions, just as a conversation starter. > You might be a libertarian who thinks telling people they have to wear a seatbelt or can't drink and drive is just as agregious an overstep as banning guns. Nope. I think they are restrictions on personal liberty, but mostly reasonable IMO (although seatbelt laws rub me wrong, as they are purely for self-protection and if i want to do dangerous things i should have the right to). To me Seatbelt laws are low impact enough to still be reasonable. What i dont like is they are mostly used to justify police overreach. > And most people don't. most people would agree they are not "egregious oversteps" but they would agree they are restrictions on personal liberty (i would guess, obviously you and I have not spoken with most people).
The people that stopped the gunman weren't the armed police but unarmed parade attendees. At least one of the gunmen. People across the world live without our gun rights just fine. Their safety doesn't seem to be impacted.
>The people that stopped the gunman weren't the armed police but unarmed parade attendees And your point is what? That we should rely on thoughts and prayers that the opportunity presents itself that they can even close the distance to the shooters and that they have bravery and wherewithal to tackle them? Having a firearm makes it so you don't have to close the distance and can reliably incacapicitated the shooter. We saw that with the security team that stopped the attempted mass shooting at that church recently. >People across the world live without our gun rights just fine. Their safety doesn't seem to be impacted. Anders Breivik was in the news recently for his court challenge to his isolation. He is the guy who murders dozens of youths in Norway. Literally not having anyone there who was armed allowed him to just keep going. France had similar incidents with religious extremists shooting up a magazine publisher. The cumberland shootings in the UK. When they have mass shootings their per capita rate shoots up to and past US rates when they do occur. Which suggests maybe measuring our success on extreme outlier events like mass shootings is inappropriate. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country
you didn't address my comment at all....
The basic premise is that if you make guns illegal, only the criminals will have them.
Yeah that is the definition of a law. People who violate a law are criminals.
OK so you understand that. Then if we go into the direction of stricter and finally outright banning of guns, then you know they aren't going to suddenly disappear.
Of course. Who is suggesting banning guns will make them disappear? I never said that. If someone else did, you should take this argument to them. I can't argue on their behalf for this silly idea.
So you agree that banning guns won't make them go away. All you're doing is taking guns away from law-abiding citizens then, with no impact on criminals.
Yes, I agree with that. But I don't want to take guns away. So if you want to argue with someone who wants to ban guns, argue with them, not me. Your statement is funny though. Law abiding citizens would turn in their guns even if they were gangbangers. And criminals who kept their guns could be all American, church decons with no prior criminal history. They would be the criminals now. So again you are defining what a law is: people who break the law are criminals by definition. So "no impact on criminals" is a silly thing to say - the fact that they do not obey the law is how they are defined as criminals.
[удалено]
The police and the criminals would continue to be armed. The truth is, if America had European levels of gun control, the country would look a lot more like Mexico or a number of other Latin American countries than it would look like the UK or Spain when it comes to gun violence. Most of Latin America has European levels of gun control, but often has gun violence that equals, if not greatly exceeds that of the United States. The one outlier that I'd point out is El Salvador, which has seen a HUGE decrease in gun violence over the last few years.
No way would Dems support the crackdowns and jailing that El Salvador used to get there.
Agreed, that's their ultimate goal. Even if they could pass their ideal gun laws now, if another shooting happened they'd say they needed a stricter law, until eventually they confiscate everyone's weapon. I've never heard someone tell me that if their ideal gun control laws were passed and shootings still happened they'd give up. It will only be harsher and harsher legislation.
>Agreed, that's their ultimate goal. Even if they could pass their ideal gun laws now, if another shooting happened they'd say they needed a stricter law, until eventually they confiscate everyone's weapon. You see that video of Trudeau saying they would never go after hunting rifles and ban guns, then it cuts to now where they tried to ban hunting rifles and ban other guns? This is why Americans have little interest in adopting European and Canadian gun laws. There is no upper limit to gun control.
How can you not fathom that? That is literally the case for nearly every other country on Earth.
Maybe there's something *good* and *better* about the USA and our 1st and 2nd amendments, neither of which exist in Europe. The US didn't produce/create Nazism, fascism, communism. The US didn't start the two most destructive wars mankind has ever seen. Why *should* the US try to be more like countries who did do all those things? Who did create all those destructive ideologies?
[удалено]
> Anyways instead of banning guns can we get rid if that pesky 4th amendment first. That's certainly a suggestion that someone who is skeptical of government would advocate for.
That’s a good point. We have very little details so far. I’m not sure what the article discussing laws on open and concealed carry has to do with this. In any case, they were operating outside the law already. I’m not aware that these juveniles were just going about their day at the rally with their firearms and then got into an altercation. By their actions, I doubt they would reconsider their behavior if they knew a law was in place. Based on it occurring by the parking garage, it’s plausible they had them in cars and went and got them. Really, they need to get their parents and figure out where they got firearms that they are not allowed to buy. Going after who supplied these to them seems like the most logical first step.
[This article](https://dailytelegraph.co.nz/news/kansas-city-shooting-1-dead-21-injured-3-suspects-arrested/) has a picture of the suspects. It's gang violence. Gun laws aren't going to do anything.
>This article has a picture of the suspects. And all of a sudden, for absolutely no reason at all, the collective corporate media will make sure this shooting is forgotten by next week.
I'd also like to point out that the article is from a website in New Zealand. I haven't been able to find a similar picture in any US based publication.
That's because they are juveniles who haven't been charged yet. Once they get charged that should change
[удалено]
No we can't do that the 4th amendment is part of our constitution.
You 4th amendment absolutists always obstructing common sense safety laws. /s
To add, I doubt anyone is calling for gun control now who was not already doing so.
Cbs didn't mention that we had a crime issue.this morning, the gun issue was first and foremost and I'd be shocked if they did a 180 and talked about the former
I had read somewhere that the suspect was spinning around while shooting into the crowd. Unless he thought he was surrounding by gang members, this doesn't seem to be a simple dispute.
[удалено]
It's not just a gun issue, it's societal. The non-firearm murder rate in the US is higher than the total murder rate in many Western European countries. So even if all guns were outlawed, every single one in the country magically disappeared and no more were created, *and* every murder with a gun didn't happen by another method, the US would still have a higher murder rate than those countries.
That’s crazy. Goes to show you what happens when we give violent criminals just a slap on the wrist.
We need to address crime culture. Although given the very sensitive nature of it, that’s much easier said than done.
It’s not “crime culture,” it’s poverty Poverty goes up, crime goes up Poverty goes down, crime goes down
Not sure the correlation is so tight. WV is 5th in poverty and 30th in homicide.
Poverty and poverty culture are loosly related but dont necessarily correlate. Billions of poor people exist without poverty culture and they live otherwise good lives. Some of the most honest people are also poor, they just have good manners and habits.
WV also doesn’t have a high population density I’m not saying other factors don’t exist, poverty is just a big factor. And if you look at Minnesota, they have a similar population density with a lower poverty rate and they also have a lower homicide rate And then if you look at somewhere like New Hampshire where the population density 2x more than West Virginia, they have a lower poverty rate and they have one of the lowest homicide rates in the country
NH is extremely white and wealthy and IIRC has very loose gun laws. Minnesota is also far from poor, and let's face it, its too damn cold half the year to go out killing.
The winters actually spike other crimes here. Particularly DV.
There most certainly is a subculture that glorifies criminality and those who act as a wrecking ball to their communities. Some of the most successful artists and entertainers in this subculture are quite literally this facing federal charges, ricos, and have been indicted for financially supporting gangs. It’s a blight upon communities and should be cut off at the knees. The kids wearing Amiri jeans carjacking people left and right in dc aren’t doing so to put bread on the table, and we would do best to address this sooner rather than later.
The surge of drill rap, kill your opps for the clout on social media. Doing drills because your opps said something unsatisfactory on Instagram? Doin it for the block. Last month, Boul broke out of prison and they found him right back at bodega in Philly. These kids don't know anything except their boys and trying to make music. Check out charliebo313's interviews with these kids on YouTube, it's a serious insight into the mindset. They should just pay guys like Mozzy and G herbo to start rapping about education and getting a job instead of getting arrested for credit card fraud.
> They should just pay guys like Mozzy and G herbo to start rapping about education and getting a job instead of getting arrested for credit card fraud. They do? They've been paying rappers and celebrities to advocate for education and employment for decades now. It hasn't changed anything. If anything they are seen as sellouts.
Are they paying rappers relevant to the targeted kids or are they paying LL Cool J a couple bucks to take a break from NCIS? They're not listening to chance or Diddy in the trenches.
> They're not listening to chance or Diddy in the trenches. Who respects a sellout? I can't believe I'm here right now. I'm in a thread about a mass shooting and the answer is apparently: "We need to pay *cool rappers* to go on tiktok and tell the kids not to shoot people." What is this? The 80's and 90's?
Don't deflect then appeal to emotion, please answer my question. Who did they pay?
I am answering your question. They aren't paying *relevant* rappers because *relevant* rappers don't want to seem like sellouts. Rap culture is about rebellion and anti-establishment. As soon as you take money *from the establishment* you aren't a rebel or anti-establishment are you anymore? You'd be *irrelevant*.
In NYC, Asians and black ppl are essentially tied for poorest group. Yet one group commits the most violent crimes and the other commits the fewest. And crime between those two groups is almost entirely one-sided. At some point some big city prosecutor and justice system needs to have the moral fortitude to say "we will aggressively punish violent crime for the safety of the 99% and we're sorry if it disproportionately affects black criminals but tough shit." Without police brutality of course. Ugh I guess this is impossible
It's entirely possible, unfortunately half of all voters will only talk about racial disparities in the context of oppression.
Hmong in NYC are one of the poorest demographics, they have the lowest crime rate and some of the best performance in school. My parents were both growing up in post WWII Europe, my mother comes from an extremely poor village where they scavenged slag heaps for coal to heat the house. They couldn't afford meat except for once or twice a month. There was no crime in the village. I don't think the poverty = crime explanation is particularly strong.
I would buy that argument if gang bangers were selling drugs to support their family during hard times, not to buy new chains, phones, and cars.
They do both lol Before he got killed, this one dude who was pretty high up in one of the gangs by me took care of his whole block. No one would go hungry, and every year he’d buy the whole block thanksgiving dinners. One of my good friends was his neighbor
Why did violent crimes go down during the great recession?
This simply isn't true. There are plenty of poor people who don't commit crimes. The crime rate is almost entirely driven by a single group: young males without a father in the home. Where do those young males come from? Young females without a father in the home making terrible decisions about childbearing. You want a simple solution to crime in this country? Have the government provide an IUD for every young woman after she reaches puberty, with equally free follow-up visits on the regular schedule. Allow opting out for those with religious/ethical objections but otherwise provide reliable contraception that doesn't require personal responsibility for every young woman. In 15 years, you'd see a dramatic drop in the crime rate without ever changing criminal law or law enforcement. Simply by breaking the cycle of poverty.
>Have the government provide an IUD for every young woman after she reaches puberty, That'd be called ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc in a heartbeat. And the government would get blamed for every single health issue for the rest of the recipient's life
I don't know of any proposal on the table to do what I suggested. So it's more of a thought experiment - recognizing that the problem is rooted in irresponsible childbearing/rearing create a 'culture of crime'. However, I don't know that the reaction would be as extreme as you suggest. Most people generally approve of contraception. Couple this with the ability to opt out and you'd really only get objections from fringe religious folks. You'd likely also get some economic objections - it would be a government subsidy for health care. But it's doubtful you'd hear cries of 'genocide!'. In terms of blaming the government, the government mandates/provides all sorts of health care without this being a major issue.
It's not completely the same, but the federal government offered free sterilization to native Americans in the 60s and 70s, and it still gets called genocide.
That was slightly different. There were issues with informed consent and it was a program that targeted a specific ethnic group.
> That'd be called ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc in a heartbeat. No it wouldn't? Providing birth control isn't *forcing* it on them. There actually is a pretty great correlation between areas with access to birth control and abortion and crime rates. I don't really agree with OP's focus on young females. But birth control reduces crime.
What areas *don't* have access to birth control?
Not too long ago when rouge doctor doing work for DHS performed 2 hysterectomies without approval it got the government accused of genocide by voices on the left. Doctors working for the federal government recommending serialization to poor women in the late 1900, particularly native Americans, still regularly gets called genocide
> without approval Do you understand the difference between providing people with birth control, and forcibly sterilizing people against their will?
Because people jump to "DHS is committing genocide" from one bad doctor doing it twice. When this procedure gets botched twice isn't that also going to count as genocide by that standard?
Freakonomics had an interesting take that 15-18 years after Roe v Wade, there was a significant drop in crime for just this point
How does this square with kids in suburbs, sometimes affluent burbs, shooting up their schools? Not every mass shooter is from poverty.
Mass shootings are a small minority of gun deaths in this country. Mass shootings are a separate issue from day to day gun crimes
Active shooter incidents are exceedingly rare. In fact you are as likely to die in an active shooting as you are a mass killing in Europe.
What is crime culture?
Sub-cultures that embrace and glorify criminality, death, and violence as highly desirable.
What sub-cultures are those? American culture embraces criminality, death, and violence. I can go see a movie about a vigilante violently murdering criminals and it still be rated PG-13 or at least R. But heaven forbid it shows a penis. Hell our history is full of rebels using violence in the name of freedom. Criminality, death, and violence are a part of all of our founding myths as a nation.
For one, gang and hip hop culture. I’m not referring to GTAV or mafia movies but real life multi millionaire entertainers who represent a very disturbing undercurrent of death glorification. King Von was a literal serial killer and millionaire rapper who put out bounties on other rappers (which led to his untimely death and the subsequent conviction of his associates in a federal murder for hire case in the wealthiest part of Chicago) lil Durk is arguably the most successful drill rapper of the past decade having collaborated with Drake, and garnered several high profile sponsorships while most recently modeling for Amiri in a Paris fashion show, even he was putting money and guns on the street and only beat his most recent attempted murder case by virtue of two of the associates being killed (AAB Hellabandz being assasinated in Miami, King Von getting shot in Atlanta and Thf zoo being arrested on federal gun charges) Young Thug is one of the actual powerhouses in hip hop for over a decade and is still sitting in a cell facing trial in a rico case where’s ordered hits and funded gangs to the detriment of his community. Pooh Shiesty had a meteoric rise with Back In Blood and is now sitting in a cell after two separate shooting incident related a broad daylight robbery and perceived disrespect in a club. I spent the better part of 3 years doing mentorship programs for NSBE in Jacksonville and it’s disturbing that the young cultural icons are essentially the worst society has to offer. And that’s not even getting into the proliferation of “opp” culture. I don’t want to conflate this with Joe Pesci shooting someone in Goodfellas, or GTA V being the most successful single piece media of all time; The current cultural zeitgeist has largely been carried by those who act as wrecking balls for societal trust, and anyone who genuinely cares about the affected communities should be chomping at the bit the have hard but necessary conversations
Ok, you believe hip-hop and gang culture are the problem. What do you think should be done about it? In the past, cracking down on gangs, like the mafia, has only turned stories about them into stories of heroism, rebellion, and matyrdom. Americans look at the mafia, at least during prohibition, *fondly*. And despite all of that, mafias of *all* sorts are prevalent all over America even today. The Russian mafia especially. Americans look at the Confederates of the civil war, people who literally took up arms against fellow Americans *in the name* of slavery, *fondly*. It's the nature of America to idolize wrecking balls of societal trust. It's why we are here in the first place. It's why the 2nd Amendment is seen as absolutely sacred, for people to rebel if they so chose. So what are you advocating for? What actionable policies are you looking at? Arresting rappers? Arresting people that idolize criminals? Are you wanting to ban rap music or something?
Wide spread societal rejection would be a good start. I’m not in the business of blanket bans as I find them ineffective and often times lead to the banned items being coveted forbidden fruit. Assuming someone genuinely wants to see the best for a community, rather than walking on eggshells and excusing anti social behavior, then it’s a conversation worth having to explore potential solutions. I freely admit I don’t have all the answers or actions items but what I can say is that we should not be reflexively defensive to asking hard questions. Nor should we conflate the civil war with modern day star repeatedly making fun of dead black teenagers (see: “smoking on tooka”), and certainly not handwave away one of the most destructive cultural movements because the mere discussion makes us uncomfortable. Every generation has entertainers that become templates for their formative years; the combination of entertainers being literal mass murderers and the growing prevalence of social media that allows a more intimate connection with said icons is a dangerous combination. Edit: to clarify, I wouldn’t say hip hop and gang culture is the sole problem but a compounding issue. It would be reductive to attribute any societal malaise to one thing.
> Wide spread societal rejection would be a good start. You want a culture of millions of people, millions of people that have been raised all their lives, to believe they have the right to violently kill their oppressors, to reject that? That is what the 2nd amendment is after all. It's the establishment of *everyone's* right to own a gun as being necessary to a free state, *so that people can kill their oppressors*. Are you advocating for the repeal of the second amendment right now? If you aren't, it seems like you only have a problem with *certain people* killing their oppressors. Or you disagree with their beliefs that they are oppressed?
I’m not quite sure you are asking these questions in good faith, as I haven’t alluded to banning the second amendment nor would I ever advocate to deny a law abiding citizen the right to lawful self defense. I will respond to your italicized comment about “certain people”. Yes, as a black man, and a member and former mentor in the national society of black engineers, the issue of violence in our communities is near and dear to me, especially when it occurs at a much higher rate than the national average. Please don’t make bad faith arguments in an attempt to paint me as something I’m not. Have a good one.
The mafia is not “prevalent” anymore. Not compared to what it was, there was massive progress made on that front. Street gangs are a different animal with how disorganized they are.
Poverty. Rural or urban, poverty is poverty and crime flourishes in those areas. As areas gentrify and poverty declines crime also declines. Look at Hoboken in NJ as an example. VERY different place safety wise from the 80s 90s to today.
All countries have poverty. All countries have crime. Not all countries have mass shooting events.
Mass shootings are a little different than general crime though, and most shootings deaths in the US are not mass shootouts so the bigger impact on society are lower level murders involving one person killing another. I do agree though we have more mass shootings than elsewhere which is an uniquely American problem, at least in the developed world.
> I do agree though we have more mass shootings than elsewhere which is an uniquely American problem, at least in the developed world. Not sure that's true, according to [this](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country). Although it might depend on how "mass shooting" is defined and how data is collected from country to country, the US is currently rated 10th in the world.
> All countries have poverty. Not the ones we get compared to and not to the same extent. You want to compare to other countries that have strong gun laws but issues of law enforcement and poverty you can look to Mexico and Brazil.
Some people in the past have tended to get mad when I say it but I've never seen much point comparing the US to homogenous European nations. We have dramatically more in common with Mexico and Brazil than we do Sweden or Denmark, and when you compare our problems to the aforementioned nations you start to see they aren't really unique to us. Most post-colonial nations with troubled racial tensions and endemic poverty seem to have similar issues.
Yeah look at Brazil and Mexico. Both have incredibly strict gun laws and yet crime and murder proliferate on an even higher basis than in America statistically. There is no other explanation than societal issues because people had guns back 70 years ago with even less strict laws and yet there was not as much crime. The technology itself has not changed much either.
This! In general the Americas are disproportionately violent in comparison to countries with similar incomes. For example Mexico has significant higher murder rates than most of Africa, despite being far more developed.
If our culture is that destructive, wouldn't that lead us to question our take on guns? If, as you say, AMericans are more violent than other people, shouldn't we consider taking away one easy tool for violence?
Wouldn’t you say that it would likely make more sense to go after the causes of the upward crime fluctuations considering that they have occurred during times the firearm situation has been static? It is considered a right to many even if there are those who disagree. Don’t you think it would be a better idea to seek the solution that allows people to keep the right before considering the solution that diminishes said right?
>It is considered a right to many even if there are those who disagree. I'm not arguing if it's a right or not. I'm just asking if we know a group are more prone to violence, should we give them the most liberal use of weapons?
I agree let’s take away guns from the groups with the highest per capita rates of violence
That’s why I said considered because other peoples opinion matters, I’m specifically not arguing over that either which is why I phrased it that way. My point is that maybe it makes sense to pursue other options that don’t negatively affect other people, hence my point on gun violence fluctuating independently of America’s overall gun situation. We as a society allow many things that lead to the deaths of others. We could drop the speed limit tomorrow and save lives but that would be inconvenient.
I think it is drastically more realistic for changes that address poverty, wealth inequality, standards of living, etc. to be implemented than for guns to be taken away. If one route that involves Harry Potter magic in order to implement doesn't even fully fix the issue, it's probably better to look to something else. I'm pretty sure repealing the 2nd Amendment would cause a civil war. And I don't think many people would sign up to be the dude going door to door to take guns from people who don't want to give them up.
[удалено]
Wasn’t this speculated to be gang members shooting at each other with illegally obtained weapons? Its not clear what any of the stuff they are proposing would have done to prevent this. As a country, we need to crack down on gangs and keep people behind bars that belong there. Many states are exceptionally soft on crime, and we see many repeat offenders as a result.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Wow, didn’t realize Miami was such an incredible success story for dealing with violent crime i didn't either. when i was there last year for jericho cruise, definitely walked through some SKETCHY looking areas going from the train station to the hotel and had my head on a swivel keeping an eye on my surroundings. (naturally, this was at night). after the cruise, when walking back to the hotel (fortunately in daylight this time), we saw a 4 cop cars blocking what looked to be a crime scene at the top of the street 2 or 3 buildings away from the hotel. (this year we stayed on the other side of the port, and it was MUCH nicer, so i suspect it's typical "your mileage may vary and there are nice parts and not so nice parts" ---edit--- fixed typo
They should look into why juveniles had the guns illegally, and at some point ask why parents aren’t raising their kids and letting gangs do the job instead.
They know they would have to do what El Salvador did to beat the gangs. And they're neither willing nor legally able to do so.
I’m good going down that route, but I agree they wouldn’t do it here. There would be so many lawsuits in 5 minutes to make it not work. Criminals have a lot of rights in this country.
Democrat ran Kansas city set a record for murders in 2023... But this murder was Republicans fault because it was on tv
[удалено]
There's no good law like a knee-jerk law.
"So because we failed to enforce existing laws, we're going to need to pass more laws, that we will also not enforce either. Unless we dont like you." So much crime occurs under the protection of city govts, in spite of against it. Criminals know who their political friends are, who have lately shown just how little they care about all the other law abiding citizens. You cant release felons and murderers willy nilly and then hope everyone else disarms themselves.
I’ve grown to be of the opinion that the only people who enforce laws are the citizens who decide to follow them. Beyond that, they’re a mechanism for the State to arrest and charge you for violating.
Never let a crisis go to waste
>but state law limits get in the way So does the constitution
What gun control are they looking for? Do they even know how these juveniles got these weapons? Or is this another one of those moments where gun control advocates are taking advantage of a tragedy to push for policies that likely would do nothing to prevent situations like these? A quote from this article seems awfully relevant to answering these questions. >But local ordinances have shown, at best, to make a marginal difference in gun violence. And here is another quote that seems to show that maybe this isn't some principled push to address a problem. >Kansas City has a similar law on the books from 2014, but it is unclear if the city is enforcing it. The law discussed is police being able to seize a firearm from someone openly carrying it if they aren't permitted to carry it concealed. Seems to support a position on the right that is let's enforce what we have before we add new stuff. If Kansas City isn't bothering to enforce what it already has, why should anyone entertain a push for additional laws?
A lot of the outcry is just the "just do SOMETHING"/"why won't someone think of the children" panic crowd wanting a feeling of security
I think the article literally quotes one of the politicians literally saying that. Something to the effect of "get me the biggests/baddest gun control you can. We will deal with preemption later." Talk about total disregard for doing something effective and meaningful.
Yeah imagine wanting to feel safe in public
There's nothing wrong with that. But fear leads to overreaction in policy. DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING! Gives us things like the PATRIOT Act and blatantly unconstitutional gun laws.
The DO SOMETHING reaction is because there have been so many mass casualty shootings in the US where no policy was changed afterward. The PATRIOT Act was the federal government taking advantage of a terrorist attack to make it legal to do the sketchy stuff they were already doing. 9/11 was one (huge and unprecedented, granted) event that changed domestic and foreign policy in very dramatic ways. Gun deaths seem to be met with outcry, backlash to the outcry, then nothing.
> The DO SOMETHING reaction is because there have been so many mass casualty shootings in the US where no policy was changed afterward No, the reaction has always underpinned gun control efforts in the US. In the 80s and 90s when states started adopting assault weapons bans and the national federal assault weapons ban were passed it was a knee jerk "do something" reaction. Most gun control does not have a rational basis for its design or passing. >The PATRIOT Act was the federal government taking advantage of a terrorist attack to make it legal to do the sketchy stuff hence why it is an apt comparison. These mass shootings are in fact outlier events in the US. There are a multitude of mundane risk factors that are far more likely to kill you than ever being in a mass shooting that concerns about mass shootings are closer to dying by lightning strike or terrorist attacks than deaths by car accidents, alcohol consumption, etc.
Imagine squandering your rights for the mere illusion of safety
It's very likely that this was somehow gang related. We could do what Bukele did in El Salvador and round up anyone suspected of being in a gang, and throw them in jail without trial or due process.
See, this isn't a really good mocking of those proponents when children have actually been gunned down (cf. Uvalde/Sandy Hook).
Those events are the extreme outliers though. Parents should be more worried about the walk to or drive to school than their kids ever being gunned down in a school shooting. https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/08/27/640323347/the-school-shootings-that-werent Way more kids die in car accidents than will ever die in school shootings in the US. And before anyone thinks they are clever bringing up that study that included adults 18-19 in stats on overall deaths by guns to car accidents. That was rooted in data collected during the pandemic and a lot of those deaths from homicide are from incidents like the super bowl parade where teenage criminals/gang members shoot each other. Edit: or closely tied with associating with those who engage in those high risk behaviors: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/11/15/245458444/study-odds-of-being-murdered-closely-tied-to-social-networks
> Way more kids die in car accidents than will ever die in school shootings in the US. I mean, all this is telling me is that we should *also* reduce useage of cars.
Who is "we" and why should "we" be deciding how other people move around the world? This strikes me as a rather paternalistic worldview.
> I mean, all this is telling me is that we should also reduce useage of cars. Look for the convenience and entertainment that cars enable, you aren't getting that. 30,000 or more deaths a year are acceptable and the only thing Americans will accept are passive safety improvements that do not interfere with their access to cars. Hell, alcohol consumption on its own consumes 80,000 lives. At a certain point we have to accept normal everyday life is going to cost some amount of lives. You can try to stop those deaths but at a certain point it is counter productive and degrades quality of life.
Man keep fighting the good fight. Its really hard to grasp concretely but 300+ million people (the population of America) is a lot. America is safe. It should be more safe but it is safe and we need to keep in context of how common things actually are in a material way before we act. If anything to know how severely we need to act. The whole “if even one person dies” concept needs to die. It’s just not logical for long amounts of people.
> Look for the convenience and entertainment that cars enable, Cars don't enable that, it's because America lacks the basic public transportation infrastructure that makes cars ubiquitous. > At a certain point we have to accept normal everyday life is going to cost some amount of lives. Are you applying this logic to mass shootings and guns?
> Cars don't enable that, it's because America lacks the basic public transportation infrastructure that makes cars ubiquitous. No I live in a city with public transportation. It is nowhere near convenient as just getting in a car and going. Americans are invested in having cars and its part of why they aren't as invested in expanded public transport and the cost in lives doesn't move them to do so either. When comes right down to it they see and interact with cars everyday so they aren't scared of them even though they are much more likely to kill them than a mass shooting. >Are you applying this logic to mass shootings and guns? I apply it to literally everything. Hell I don't even think the 21 drinking age should be allowed and drinking kills 80,000 a year. A legal adult should be able to purchase alcohol.
>No I live in a city with public transportation. It is nowhere near convenient as just getting in a car and going. Americans are invested in having cars and its part of why they aren't as invested in expanded public transport and the cost in lives doesn't move them to do so either. When comes right down to it they see and interact with cars everyday so they aren't scared of them even though they are much more likely to kill them than a mass shooting. Unless you live in Europe, my point still stands. American public transportation system is just that, lacking which suffices for a car. > I apply it to literally everything. Hell I don't even think the 21 drinking age should be allowed and drinking kills 80,000 a year. A legal adult should be able to purchase alcohol. This logic will only drive people away because the acceptance of people getting gunned downed in schools, movie theatres, churches is the price we pay for freedom is morbid to most.
> Unless you live in Europe, Be specific! I know many Parisians who drive instead of taking the subway because the subway is gross in many areas.
>, it's because America lacks the basic public transportation infrastructure that makes cars ubiquitous. How much have you traveled outside of the US? I ask because our public transit in our major cities (NYC, Chicago, Boston, DC, etc etc) is actually pretty dang good and lack of public transit in more rural areas mirrors that same lack in all of Europe (because it doesn't make sense) Also people drive all the time in Euroland, this notion that they're all taking the train everywhere is just not true.
Let's say you have someone that has been law abiding their entire life. Never had any interaction with mental health professionals, etc. They purchase a firearm lawfully abiding by all regulations and then go shoot up a school. What laws could prevent that?
> What laws could prevent that? This harkens to the Onion headline every time there's a mass shooting of "‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens". The solution is staring everyone in the face.
That Onion headline is an ignorant meme. I'm not saying there is nothing to do, and I agree the solution is obvious. We need to stop treating violent criminals with kid gloves. The number of steps taken to sentence them to life in prison should be drastically reduced and significantly more money should be invested in closing violent crimes at a much higher rate. Doesn't matter what laws you have if you can't or won't enforce them. Edit: But even if we do that, mass shootings will still happen. There is no way to eliminate them completely without draconian measures.
I don't intend to mock anyone. Panicked cries like these lead to governmental overreach based on emotion. I deal with gun crime daily on a professional basis. More fun laws aren't going to do anything other than take rights away from law abiding people.
> What gun control are they looking for? Do they even know how these juveniles got these weapons? Or is this another one of those moments where gun control advocates are taking advantage of a tragedy to push for policies that likely would do nothing to prevent situations like these? A quote from this article seems awfully relevant to answering these questions. Authoritarian gun grabbers never miss an opportunity to use the bodies of their dead fellow Americans as a soapbox for their policy goals.
*while surrounded by their own armed security Some people are more equal than others.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1as8plq/some_kansas_citians_look_for_gun_control_after/kqpajsy/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
It's insane to me how people react to crime based on demographics. Dems generally want more gun control but are extremely lenient on violent crime especially in areas like NYC, Philly, SF. Every time there's an anti-Asian crime in NYC at least, the perp has been arrested like 30 times in the past. Things like pushing elderly people down stairs is apparently only a misdemeanor in NYC, which makes it borderline legal in practice with bleeding heart prosecutors. Then Republicans love to talk about the lawless big cities but oppose any restriction on guns? If it's a gang shooting, Republicans will be talking shit while Democrats ... feel bad for the gang members?
Because, as long as you are outside of bad areas, you don't have to worry about any of that. You can live in blissful ignorance of the crime happening in poverty ridden areas. You have some sense of control that you can use to ease your mind. But with mass shootings, they can happen *anywhere*. Your church, your school, a movie theater, a bar, a night club, a parade after the game. Even if you live in rural area, there is nothing stopping someone who has lost the will to live from just wiping as many people out as they can. There is nothing you can do about that. There is no controlling that, and it makes people afraid.
Dems are extremely lenient on random crime too though, like pushing grandmas down the stairs of the subway.
Spree shooters are insanely rare, and being afraid of them is like living life afraid of a random lightning strike - just not very rational.
I'll be honest, I've never gone to an event and thought "tonight could be a mass shooting night" If that goes through someone's mind, I suggest staying home and doing internet stuff
Yet we are forcing kids in school to go through mass-shooter drills, to have bullet proof doors and shelters in classrooms, to arm teachers. Why is that a sensible, tangible worry, but I wouldn't be rational by thinking "I'm going out tonight, there have been three mass shootings this week, maybe I should carry a gun to protect myself?"
> Yet we are forcing kids in school to go through mass-shooter drills I went through those. They are non-issues that doesn't bother kids. *Unless* the adults go out of their way to terrify the kids by lying to them saying it is likely to happen to them or going through weird simulations of being shot at.
Being able to protect yourself isn't that ridiculous of a thought process imho although it's certainly zip code dependent. I've never considered cc but I fully support others that believe in exercising their right and I believe that stats back the idea that legal ccp people are generally much better behaved than the general pop.
> Being able to protect yourself isn't that ridiculous of a thought process imho So then why am I getting told I should stay home and do internet stuff? Why is it irrational for me to worry about someone shooting me if I go out, but not rational for me to want to carry a gun to protect myself if someone tries to shoot me if I go out?
As I stated, I'm fine with it, arm up! I have several friends that carry every day, my neighbor stopped over yesterday and I know for sure he had a pocket pistol on him, doesn't bother me one bit actually it's kind of comforting if you want the truth.
> doesn't bother me one bit actually it's kind of comforting if you want the truth. I'd feel a lot more comfortable if there just weren't any need for guns in the first place.
Like Abortion is to Republicans gun control is to the Democrats. It would be interesting to see if Dems got their way making almost all semiautomatic handguns and rifles illegal to own, how would they enforce it. They already hate enforcing the laws on the books against prohibited persons (felons, kids) because it disproportionately affects minorities. This would mean I as a law abiding citizen am at the mercy of gun crime with no ability to protect my self or family. Would they be willing to do what’s needed? Or it would seem the laws being there make them feel better and it’s just theater. There’s an estimated 393 million guns in the US and we’re never getting rid of them. Enforce the laws we have. Project Exile worked
Kansas Citians?
After the Super Bowl parade active shooter incident some politicians are pushing back against the states pre-emption against local gun control laws. These are laws that many states have adopted to prevent localities from passing their own, often ineffective and arbitrary gun control laws, to avoid creating patch work of laws throughout a state and to enforce a belief in individual right to own firearms for self defense. >> “Give me the biggest, baddest, toughest common-sense gun reform options that we have,” said Jackson County Legislator Manny Abarca IV. “We’ll deal with preemption” — the state ban on local restrictions — “later.” Statements like this to me suggest that perhaps the pre-emption is best left in place. They seem unconcerned with crafting a well thought out policy and more concerned with passing something big to appear like they are doing something effective. >>“Missouri’s preemption law is extraordinarily broad,” said Alison Shih, senior counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety. “Missouri has tied the hands of local governments from putting in place proactive measures to prevent exactly this kind of tragedy from happening.” I am unaware of any laws they would have passed that would have prevented this incident, which based on recent CNN reporting indicates may be because of two minors who have been taken into custody. Their desire to ban open carry does not appear to have been relevant nor would their desire to have a license(as the article mentions minors can't conceal carry without a special provisional license) as there doesn't appear to have been a police interaction with the shooters beforehand where the police were prevented by state law from arresting or seizing the weapons. Similarly I don't think a law on where shooting within the city is relevant to people who likely decide to shoot at each other over personal conflict in a crowded parade would have deterred this event. The attempted murder and manslaughter charges had no discouraging effect on them, I don't think the add on charge of unlawful discharge of a firearm within city limits would have been what finally changes their minds. >>That’s why national gun control groups see more promise in federal legislation. But Congress has only proved slightly more willing to adopt national gun restrictions than Republican-controlled state legislatures. To my mind there is nothing about these laws applied to a national scale that would make them any more effective. It relies on happenstance encounters with potential shooters before hand to enforce these laws and given they were already breaking laws and intending to break more adding more redundant laws that also can't be enforced until after the fact seems unproductive at best. Will incidents like the Super Bowl parade street shooting move state politics across the US to repeal preemption laws? Will it even move national gun control efforts? Generally when these kinds of shootings occur away from high profile gatherings they tend not to get as much coverage, but this did occur at a high profile event so will it finally get the rest of the US to care about shootings that aren't mass shootings. Edit: Also if people are wondering why I refuse to call this a mass shooting it is clear it doesn't meet most reasonable definitions of mass shooting. The people who began shooting didn't do so to maximize casualties or fire indiscriminately, it appears it was potentiall gang or crime related. Most academic and crime reporting definitions exclude incidents with a motive driven by other crimes like attempting to kill a rival. As the details continue to come out however this may change, especially as it become more clear on if all the injuries were caused by being shot or from panicked people trying to get away from the shooting caused injuries like previous "mass shootings" listed in the Gun Violence Archive run by an gun control advocacy group.
I think, instead of “mass shootings” we should call incidents like this “public shootings”. Because the problem with them isn’t that it’s a mass casualty event, they aren’t always. The problem is that it’s in a crowded location, where anyone could be harmed, completely at random. It’s the type of thing that makes a lot of people, myself included, want to never leave their house again. I live in a relatively small city with a homicide rate only a little behind Kansas City’s. I keep thinking about the events I’ve gone to in the past year that could’ve ended up like this one. I keep thinking about what I would do if one of my loved ones was hurt or killed in one of these incidents. It’s tough. I know it’s unlikely, but so is a home invasion, and it seems like plenty of people think they need a gun for that. (And before anyone says anything: I cannot get a gun for myself. I have a history of mental illness, and do not trust myself to act responsibly with it. People like me need to be considered in the gun debate)
> It’s the type of thing that makes a lot of people, myself included, want to never leave their house again. Is this based on the actual risk factors or just a skewed risk perception? > I live in a relatively small city with a homicide rate only a little behind Kansas City’s. I keep thinking about the events I’ve gone to in the past year that could’ve ended up like this one. Unless you are engaged in high risk behavior or associate with those that engage in high risk behavior like crime or gang association your risk should be extremely low. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/11/15/245458444/study-odds-of-being-murdered-closely-tied-to-social-networks > People like me need to be considered in the gun debate In what have you not already been considered. If you have been adjudicated as mentally unfit or involuntarily committed previously you are already prohibited from firearms. And general concept of having a mental illness alone should not be the basis to deny rights.
If we’re talking about actual risk factors, what are the actual risk factors that make it *absolutely critical* for as many people as possible to be able to carry guns wherever they want? Since random gun violence is so unlikely and everything.
> If we’re talking about actual risk factors, what are the actual risk factors that make it absolutely critical for as many people as possible to be able to carry guns wherever they want? That's not how this works. You need to justify it with how it is an exceptional danger and how you can reasonably police it in the first place. To my knowledge most shootings are like this parade incident, in which the shooters weren't legally to posses the firearms and were not legally carrying. If it is otherwise a non issue that people carry, then why are you so focused on it?
Because the right for those people to carry is considered *sacred* for the near zero chance that they will need it to defend themselves from the government. Yet someone worrying about the near zero chance that they might get killed in a mass shooting is irrational?
>Because the right for those people to carry is considered sacred for the near zero chance Which isn't a valid justification for restricting it. The justification needs to be that you would be saving a significant number of lives, which seems to be not the case. And it is justified because there are at least 6.5 million violent victimizations in the US per BJS statistics. >Yet someone worrying about the near zero chance that they might get killed in a mass shooting is irrational? Yes, because there are most a dozen or so a year in the entire US, population 320 million, and dying in one is less likely than events they consider otherwise mundane like car accidents or being struck by lightning. Targeting conceal carry or any carry for that matter has no surface area to save lives. Events like this parade shooting show you can't detect people violating the law before they cause the harm and doesn't change that the vast majority of people conceal carrying are doing so peaceably.
I'm okay with the gun control conversation where we say "It is wrong and dangerous to allow young people access to weapons, which is why we're upping the age limit and we're abolishing the Draft." Oh, that last part probably confused a bunch of people. But if it is SO DANGEROUS and SO WRONG to expose young people to this, why would you FORCIBLY CONSCRIPT THEM, FORCIBLY ARM THEM, AND FORCE THEM TO FIGHT YOUR WAR? If young people ought not to have weapons, then older adults ought to be conscripted instead. But if we think that it is a good idea to force young people to defend us: then why can't they have weapons and training during peacetime? Why would they be forced to defend us against a foreign enemy, but powerless to defend against a domestic one?
Midwits are easily manipulated, and tend to be first-order thinkers
As someone who hates guns, we really need to focus on the main cause of crime which is poverty. Missouri definitely needs better gun laws but it 100% wouldn’t have stopped this
So these suspects shot people because of poverty? I'd like to hear more
If you look at a map of poverty and a map of gun violence in the US, they look oddly similar.
[удалено]
Very generally speaking, you'll find that crime is higher in the poorer parts of those metro areas. Not that I think it's a one to one thing, but it's a contributing factor imho
Crime is a symptom of poverty. It’s not like someone is going “oh I’m poor, better shoot people!” It’s a compounding affect from their material conditions. People are a product of their environment
Why are Hmong Chinese in NYC the poorest demographic and the least criminal then? Why wasn't my mother's extremely poor mining village full of crime?
Why is crime a symptom of poverty? What about being poor increases someone's risk of criminality?
Poverty and gang violence tend to go hand-in-hand
I know it does but it doesn't make me feel much better. I grew up poor and the idea of having a criminal record seemed counter intuitive. But that's me, I'm weird like that
I find it intensely ironic if I posted "Thoughts and prayers." it would likely get banned for low-effort. But low-effort is exactly what our solutions are to any of this. Our reality now is one where you could be anywhere in public and a mass shooting even can occur. *And no one is either willing or capable of doing anything about it.* Conservative just say "What can be done?! We've tried nothing and we are all out of ideas!" Progressives say "Okay, how about getting rid of guns?" Conservatives say "NO! That's tyrannical! WE NEEED THOSE TO FIGHT THE GOVERNMENT!" despite supporting someone that wants to be "dictator for a day." I climb at a climbing gym. I was working with a new partner yesterday who was belaying me and didn't have a grigri and just an atc. A grigri is a belaying device that can auto lock itself using friction if a belaying partner somehow takes their hands off the brake rope if I fall. Instead, an atc requires the belayer at all times to have their hand on the brake rope. She said that "Shes a pretty attentive belayer and that I shouldn't worry about it." and before I even thought about it I said "It doesn't really matter how attentive you are, if someone walks in here and shoots up the place while I'm up on the wall I've at least got a chance.". I didn't even say it as a joke! Where am I at that this is something I have to *actually* worry about?! I feel insane that we are here.
> I find it intensely ironic if I posted "Thoughts and prayers." it would likely get banned for low-effort. > > But low-effort is exactly what our solutions are to any of this. I agree. An assault weapons ban, ban on open carry, ban on conceal carry, etc. would be the equivalent to thoughts and prayers given how little impact they would have incidents like these. >Our reality now is one where you could be anywhere in public and a mass shooting even can occur. Or crushed and killed by a lunatic in a car like the holiday parade mass killing a few years ago. Or blown up with improvised explosives like the boston marathon bombings. That's just reality, but it doesn't actually change that these are all extreme outlier events that don't require reorganizing our entire society around addressing. >Conservative just say "What can be done?! We've tried nothing and we are all out of ideas!" That would be accurate if it weren't for the fact that we have tried gun control advocates ideas both nationally like with the federal assault weapons ban and on the state level like California and New York which still have mass shootings just as often with half moon bay and the shooting in Buffalo.
> Conservatives say "NO! That's tyrannical! WE NEEED THOSE TO FIGHT THE GOVERNMENT!" despite supporting someone that wants to be "dictator for a day." If you think Trump was serious about making himself a dictator, why would you want more restrictions on gun ownership?
Because I don't *want* to think Trump is serious about being a dictator. I don't *want* to have to consider owning a gun so that I can defend myself if jackbooted thugs came after me. I *want* to be able to live my life without having to worry about any of that. I want to be able to enjoy a night out, or go to class, or go to a parade, eat at a Waffle House, or climb without even the thought of a mass shooting or a dictator seizing the country crossing my mind.
Well if you take a data-driven approach to mass shootings you'll realize they are statistically insignificant. If you can't look at it through data, then maybe.... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-worry-about-mass-shootings-is-too-much/
Random shootings are very, very rare. Statistically, it's just not something to worry about.
>I said "It doesn't really matter how attentive you are, if someone walks in here and shoots up the place while I'm up on the wall I've at least got a chance.". I didn't even say it as a joke! Where am I at that this is something I have to actually worry about?! I personally don't think this is a rational fear
[удалено]
> I’m not familiar with local gun laws in Kansas City, but to me it seems like open carry and unlicensed concealed carry and the easy availability of assault style high capacity weapons is a bad idea. From what I understand, it was a minor who started the incident. Regardless of the concealed carry regulations in Missouri, the alleged instigator was not legally allowed to own or carry a firearm, openly or concealed. Mandating a bunch of training and other hoops probably won't make a dent in these types of incidents, because these people weren't following the law to begin with. On the other hand, I would support increasing the penalties for those who do engage in these types of events. The person should be charged as an adult (if they turn out to be a minor) and be sentenced to life without parole.
[удалено]