Mass Shooting and Gun Control Megathread

[Jerry Atrick]

We hear different rhetoric from the US Government every time there's a mass shooting depending on whether it's Democrat or Republican in Government. But neither party has a true solution for this problem. It's perpetual.

One reason why there is never a solution is because of the two party system a la political pendulum that swings in only two directions. Of course the right wing doesn't wanna do anything about the problem because the NRA is such a huge lobby and has a stranglehold on republican politicians. So when the left wing has majorities in the House, Senate, and even presidency, they can't hold power long enough to do anything about it. Then another election cycle comes along and we rinse and repeat but in the other direction. Look at what is happening now where the minority is literally calling the shots in Washington all because 2 democratic senators (Manchin and Sinema) keep voting with republicans and what a coincidence, they both are owned by corporations. Also, as long as we have the filibuster, which is a relic of Jim Crow, nothing major will ever change for the better.

Honestly the democratic party is too fragmented between the progressives, who actually want to make America a better place for all, and the moderates who are just as corporate-bought as the republicans. At least the republicans do a better job of sticking together. The only problem is that they stick together to uniformly screw over the American people in a way that the rich will always be in power and have all the economic advantages to keep the regular people down.

Annnnnnndd...... cue all the $40,000 wannabe millionaires who think they will actually become wealthy enough for a democratic tax hike to affect them....

 

[Jerry Atrick]

Just to give you an idea of a “ghetto gun”

lmao. Whoever fires that needs to wear a motorcycle helmet or welder's mask or something, otherwise he's gonna get .410 shot and pipe shrapnel all up in his grill. And he will deserve it along with his Darwin Award.

 

[Frazzled1990]

One reason why there is never a solution is because of the two party system a la political pendulum that swings in only two directions. Of course the right wing doesn't wanna do anything about the problem because the NRA is such a huge lobby and has a stranglehold on republican politicians. So when the left wing has majorities in the House, Senate, and even presidency, they can't hold power long enough to do anything about it. Then another election cycle comes along and we rinse and repeat but in the other direction. Look at what is happening now where the minority is literally calling the shots in Washington all because 2 democratic senators (Manchin and Sinema) keep voting with republicans and what a coincidence, they both are owned by corporations. Also, as long as we have the filibuster, which is a relic of Jim Crow, nothing major will ever change for the better.

Honestly the democratic party is too fragmented between the progressives, who actually want to make America a better place for all, and the moderates who are just as corporate-bought as the republicans. At least the republicans do a better job of sticking together. The only problem is that they stick together to uniformly screw over the American people in a way that the rich will always be in power and have all the economic advantages to keep the regular people down.

Annnnnnndd...... cue all the $40,000 wannabe millionaires who think they will actually become wealthy enough for a democratic tax hike to affect them....

Even if the Democrats were in Government long enough to do something about it. I still don't see what they could practically do. If they were somehow able to push a bill through Congress to enforce tighter gun restrictions or a flat out ban, it would only result in civil unrest and riots. Honestly, I think the Democrats as a party are (silently) relieved that there is always something that gets in the way. This allows them to continue to preach their anti-gun stance, while simultaneously not having to worry about being in a position to ever really do anything about it.

 

[Jerry Atrick]

Even if the Democrats were in Government long enough to do something about it. I still don't see what they could practically do. If they were somehow able to push a bill through Congress to enforce tighter gun restrictions or a flat out ban, it would only result in civil unrest and riots. Honestly, I think the Democrats as a party are (silently) relieved that there is always something that gets in the way. This allows them to continue to preach their anti-gun stance, while simultaneously not having to worry about being in a position to ever really do anything about it.

While I agree with much of what you are saying, that is why I previously mentioned the democratic party being fragmented between progressives and moderates. The progressives really do want change but the moderates have a majority amongst democrat politicians so they have control over the party.

You are correct if you are talking about moderate democrats because they are complacent and talk a big game without actually doing anything. The progressives on the other hand would actually do something about it if it wasn't for the do-nothing moderates holding the party back. This is the reason why the two party system does not work. The way it stands, if the progressives broke free and created their own party, it would likely only result in more republican victories. So for now, progressives have to play by the shitty rules of the DNC until they can get enough folks elected to Congress and the Senate to actually do something positive for the country for a change, which seems to be taking forever.

Remember, Biden is a moderate. Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) is a moderate. Chuck Schumer (Senate Majority Leader) is a moderate. The chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is a moderate. As long as these things don't change, nothing will.

 

[Frazzled1990]

I understand what you're saying. But even if that were to become the case and the progressives were somehow able to take over government and congress. Would pushing through such legislation really turn out positively?

I mean, the legislation appears positive on the surface of things. But you have to consider how the general public at large would react to such legislation. It could be utter chaos.

I agree that the 2 party system doesn't work in the sense that it prevents any real lasting change from occurring. But it seems that any real change would turn the country into a complete war zone, such is the polarisation of politics in the country.

 

[PatDC4l]

Probably. What should we do about that?

Read somewhere that boys not Having a father figure in their life makes them much more likely to end up incarcerated. Young boys need fathers to show them a way otherwise they tend to follow their peers

 

[Las Veghost grower]

lmao. Whoever fires that needs to wear a motorcycle helmet or welder's mask or something, otherwise he's gonna get .410 shot and pipe shrapnel all up in his grill. And he will deserve it along with his Darwin Award.

I don’t know how well that particular one will work, but Iv seen a couple homemade “slam shotguns” made from threaded pipe, they all work as expected

 

[Droppersneck]

One reason why there is never a solution is because of the two party system a la political pendulum that swings in only two directions. Of course the right wing doesn't wanna do anything about the problem because the NRA is such a huge lobby and has a stranglehold on republican politicians. So when the left wing has majorities in the House, Senate, and even presidency, they can't hold power long enough to do anything about it. Then another election cycle comes along and we rinse and repeat but in the other direction. Look at what is happening now where the minority is literally calling the shots in Washington all because 2 democratic senators (Manchin and Sinema) keep voting with republicans and what a coincidence, they both are owned by corporations. Also, as long as we have the filibuster, which is a relic of Jim Crow, nothing major will ever change for the better.

Honestly the democratic party is too fragmented between the progressives, who actually want to make America a better place for all, and the moderates who are just as corporate-bought as the republicans. At least the republicans do a better job of sticking together. The only problem is that they stick together to uniformly screw over the American people in a way that the rich will always be in power and have all the economic advantages to keep the regular people down.

Annnnnnndd...... cue all the $40,000 wannabe millionaires who think they will actually become wealthy enough for a democratic tax hike to affect them....

Do you honestly think it’s just bc of the “nra lobby”? most of us know the NRA is complete bs and hate it. The support for the second amendment comes from the right and left, or at least in red states. It’s always been about protecting from government tyranny. Its literally the only point of the amendment, I don’t even know the second amendment should allow for hunting or sport shooting.

 

[Jerry Atrick]

Do you honestly think it’s just bc of the “nra lobby”? most of us know the NRA is complete bs and hate it. The support for the second amendment comes from the right and left, or at least in red states. It’s always been about protecting from government tyranny. Its literally the only point of the amendment, I don’t even know the second amendment should allow for hunting or sport shooting.

Bolded for being incorrect. Actually if you review the history of the NRA, it began as an organization that only promoted sport hunting and shooting. It wasn't until the early 1980s IIRC, when they teamed up with the ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) and moved away from sportsmanship and evolved into the fearmongering about government tyranny lobby that we have today.

You also make a good point about what the 2A allows. Do you honestly think the writers of the 2A knew technology would lead to the weapons of quick destruction that we have today? Back then they only had single shot muskets for crying out loud. This is one place where constitutional literalists get bitten in the ass. They aren't called AMENDments for nothing and some of them need more amending.

 

[mal3volent]

Bolded for being incorrect. Actually if you review the history of the NRA, it began as an organization that only promoted sport hunting and shooting. It wasn't until the early 1980s IIRC, when they teamed up with the ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) and moved away from sportsmanship and evolved into the fearmongering about government tyranny lobby that we have today.

I think he meant that's what the second amendment has always been about, not what the nra has always been about.

I don’t even know the second amendment should allow for hunting or sport shooting.

How does "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" not allow for hunting? It allows for soft mama's boys to take their ARs to McDonald's but not for a person to shoot a deer for their family to eat?

 

[Droppersneck]

Bolded for being incorrect. Actually if you review the history of the NRA, it began as an organization that only promoted sport hunting and shooting. It wasn't until the early 1980s IIRC, when they teamed up with the ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) and moved away from sportsmanship and evolved into the fearmongering about government tyranny lobby that we have today.

You also make a good point about what the 2A allows. Do you honestly think the writers of the 2A knew technology would lead to the weapons of quick destruction that we have today? Back then they only had single shot muskets for crying out loud. This is one place where constitutional literalists get bitten in the ass. They aren't called AMENDments for nothing and some of them need more amending.

I think they knew guns would be what they are today. They had weapons that fired rapidly back then and cannons that created a lot of destruction. The principle of the firearm remains. Had we not had the second amendment, for example, we would have experienced the authoritarianism Australia and Canada observed During covid nonsense.

 

[Droppersneck]

I think he meant that's what the second amendment has always been about, not what the nra has always been about.



How does "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" not allow for hunting? It allows for soft mama's boys to take their ARs to McDonald's but not for a person to shoot a deer for their family to eat?

I just like making that argument bc it makes mayo liberals seethe. The establishment and state media in the US tries to paint the second amendment as something cartoonish, our right to deer hunt and shoot coke cans lol.

 

[Jerry Atrick]

I just like making that argument bc it makes mayo liberals seethe. The establishment and state media in the US tries to paint the second amendment as something cartoonish, our right to deer hunt and shoot coke cans lol.

And yet the republican establishment and conservative media uses the 2A as an excuse to not do anything about the hundreds of mass shootings (in addition to all the other methods of homicide by guns) that take place each year. Tens of thousands of human lives lost in the US, more than most other countries on earth. And for what? So the gravy seals can LARP with hard ons for one day taking down the Blue Lives they believe Matter so much?

 

[✿Dai₷y✿]

have European countries found a way to prevent knife/acid/vehicle attacks yet?

Id say most that have been reported on a world news scale would be terrorist related and could have been prevented in the first place if America had better things to do than arming militants groups to attack their governments ie Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq, etc.

As for guns, oh well too bad, at least the problem is Americans killing each other and being too stupid to see the big picture locally instead of sending weapons elsewhere to cause damage overseas.

I doubt anyone really cares anymore about this, it's not a big deal anymore.

 

[deficiT]

Yeah, idk man. From growing up around a very democratic, strict gun law, yet super murder happy city, I can say I don't think restrictive gun laws do much to prevent murder and violence. There are so many factors.

I don't have all the answers, but I generally like to trend towards people keeping their individual liberties.

 

[JackARoe]

Yeah, idk man. From growing up around a very democratic, strict gun law, yet super murder happy city, I can say I don't think restrictive gun laws do much to prevent murder and violence. There are so many factors.

Exactly, and I think it is a case of the jeannie has been let out of the bottle. How do you go back in time? There would have had to been better agreements years ago when guns were coming into fashion. But of course we really needed guns then. I mean we do now too but I do find it crazy how easy it is to get a gun in some states. NY is fairly hard to get one. Texas was much easier. So different states have different laws. But yeah, can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

I do not think we can legislate morality. We tried that with drugs. We are going to have to figure out another way. I mean what creates a "mass shooter"? I for sure however am all for making it tougher to get guns or show some form of responsibility. I know someone that loves guns and has a collection. That guy we should leave alone. The kid under 18 that tries to purchase an assault weapon we should not let happen. Common sense, logic. You have to be over 18 to buy tobacco.

This was the talk humanity should have had in the 10th century in China. Not when it is already unmanageable. And I do lean towards individual rights. However I get pissed when I would be arrested for a drug but someone can buy an assault weapon. Total BS.

 

[deficiT]

Exactly, and I think it is a case of the jeannie has been let out of the bottle. How do you go back in time? There would have had to been better agreements years ago when guns were coming into fashion. But of course we really needed guns then. I mean we do now too but I do find it crazy how easy it is to get a gun in some states. NY is fairly hard to get one. Texas was much easier. So different states have different laws. But yeah, can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

I do not think we can legislate morality. We tried that with drugs. We are going to have to figure out another way. I mean what creates a "mass shooter"? I for sure however am all for making it tougher to get guns or show some form of responsibility. I know someone that loves guns and has a collection. That guy we should leave alone. The kid under 18 that tries to purchase an assault weapon we should not let happen. Common sense, logic. You have to be over 18 to buy tobacco.

This was the talk humanity should have had in the 10th century in China. Not when it is already unmanageable. And I do lean towards individual rights. However I get pissed when I would be arrested for a drug but someone can buy an assault weapon. Total BS.

I tend to agree with this sentiment, generally.

There are basic regulations we should keep in place for weaponry but I don't think outright prohibition is an answer.

Baltimore is one of the most violent cities in the country, and Maryland has incredibly strict gun regulations. Especially in comparison to the neighboring states of VA & WV.

But therein lies the rub anyway, interstate travel & commerce renders gun laws futile. A black market will always form.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Death toll in Texas elementary school shooting rises; 19 children, 2 adults killed by shooter

The suspect was identified as 18-year-old Salvador Ramos, a student at Uvalde High School.

abc13.com

another Sandyhook...

14 elementary school children, 1 teacher dead, 1 grandmother dead, and shooter was shot by police today in the latest shooting in Texas

.....

"He shot and killed horrifically and incomprehensibly 14 students and killed a teacher," Abbott said during an unrelated press briefing.

..."incomprehensible".... yeah we couldn't see this coming

 

[Las Veghost grower]

I tend to agree with this sentiment, generally.

There are basic regulations we should keep in place for weaponry but I don't think outright prohibition is an answer.

Baltimore is one of the most violent cities in the country, and Maryland has incredibly strict gun regulations. Especially in comparison to the neighboring states of VA & WV.

But therein lies the rub anyway, interstate travel & commerce renders gun laws futile. A black market will always form.

Love the new profile pic , layne died way to early, him and jerry were a match made in rock heaven

 

[deficiT]

Love the new profile pic , layne died way to early, him and jerry were a match made in rock heaven

Thanks man I felt, stagnant, and like it was time for some change. Layne has been an avatar of mine formerly and so I went and ran back to the best one I could.