Current Events > We could reduce mass shootings if we compromised.

(+) Yeah! (+)

What we need is better access to mental health services, universal background checks when buying a gun, and NOT silly laws that accomplish nothing (like a pistol grip making an AR-15 an "assault weapon) that just piss off law-abiding gun owners. The news should also be heavily fined for revealing the name of the shooter, showing the shooter's picture, or telling the story of the shooter. This encourages dangerous copycats who want everyone to know their name too.

---

I agree with everything you just said. Sounds completely reasonable.

---

We need compromise instead of the all or nothing approach that both sides push for. Realistically, its too late to ban guns outright. On the other side, you cant ignore the rising amounts of shootings.

I really dont see why any civilian would actually need a semi-auto version of an assault rifle. Its not good for home defense because the rounds are so destructive that you could kill your neighbor if a bullet missed or went through the invader. Anyone who claims they have them to fend off the government is honestly lying to themselves. Even if you took out a wave, you cant beat a tank or an armored vehicle. You literally cannot fend off the US government with a bushmaster or whatever youve got.

---

You assume there is any reason for pro gun people to compromise knowing the history of anti-gun people. The only reason gun ownership is an individual right is because the SCOTUS said so after numerous jurisdictions tried to de-facto ban them after decades of denying that increasing laws would lead to such a state.

Anti-gun people were and still are fighting to ban guns, and they continue to operate in bad faith.

What you say sounds reasonable on the surface, but everyone knows it would not stop there and lines have been drawn.

TheShadowViper posted...

You assume there is any reason for pro gun people to compromise knowing the history of anti-gun people. The only reason gun ownership is an individual right is because the SCOTUS said so after numerous jurisdictions tried to de-facto ban them after decades of denying that increasing laws would lead to such a state.

Anti-gun people were and still are fighting to ban guns, and they continue to operate in bad faith.

The mental health thing is a super valid point. No sane person wants to commit a mass shooting. And its not like shit doesnt once in awhile happen in countries with tighter gun laws. Think canada had one. Think china had a mass stabbing. But it probably happens here more cause mental health issues.

---

Payzmaykr posted...

I really dont see why any civilian would actually need a semi-auto version of an assault rifle.

It's just a modern rifle. Why should a semi-auto rifle be banned just because it fires an intermediate caliber and doesn't have an old-fashioned monte carlo stock? An AR-15 is ideal for both home defense (you can buy frangible rounds, or soft-nosed bullets, which police use), and punching paper at the range.

---

TheShadowViper posted...

Anti-gun people were and still are fighting to ban guns, and they continue to operate in bad faith.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

---

Just let the government issue every1 have guns.
Make it mandatory to always be armed in public and every1 has to go through basic military training

---

TheShadowViper posted...

You assume there is any reason for pro gun people to compromise knowing the history of anti-gun people. The only reason gun ownership is an individual right is because the SCOTUS said so after numerous jurisdictions tried to de-facto ban them after decades of denying that increasing laws would lead to such a state.

Anti-gun people were and still are fighting to ban guns, and they continue to operate in bad faith.

What you say sounds reasonable on the surface, but everyone knows it would not stop there and lines have been drawn.

The compromise part is abolishing dumb gun laws because with universal background checks implemented, theres no logical reason to try to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds, etc.

---

The problem, at least in some cases is that it isn't the gun owner that causes the mass shootings. It's someone who might be related to the gun owner. As in the typical case of school shooters.

I don't know how the gun laws work in America, but I would imagine it should play similar to getting your red cross first aid training up here in Canada. Renewed every few years with some sort of course that you need to pass. That could include a psych test, thorough background review, etc. It won't get guns off the streets, but it would reduce careless users. Hell, maybe you already do that. I don't know.

Ivany2008 posted...

The problem, at least in some cases is that it isn't the gun owner that causes the mass shootings. It's someone who might be related to the gun owner. As in the typical case of school shooters

That's what gun safes are for. You got smaller ones for individual guns and big ones for bigger/more guns. Had a family memeber start having suicidal thoughts once. Passcode on the safe got changed right away.

A lot of states do have laws about leaving guns laying around the house unsecured where a minor could get them at the very least. One of those kinda laws though that aint gonna get enforced until after something happens though

---

i think all guns should have something integrated that makes it disabled when pointed at a human

---

mooreandrew58 posted...

That's what gun safes are for. You got smaller ones for individual guns and big ones for bigger/more guns. Had a family memeber start having suicidal thoughts once. Passcode on the safe got changed right away.

A lot of states do have laws about leaving guns laying around the house unsecured where a minor could get them at the very least. One of those kinda laws though that aint gonna get enforced until after something happens though

I know that Japan has very interesting gun laws. Not something that would work in America mind you, but interesting nonetheless. In Japan they force you to keep ammo and the gun in separate safes, you also have to have a very thorough mental health evaluation and it takes a long time to actually get a gun, which is why so few actually have one. Handguns are outright banned. Only air rifles and shotguns are allowed; and if you die, your relatives must hand in your firearms.

---

skermac posted...

i think all guns should have something integrated that makes it disabled when pointed at a human

Tech fails/ can be bypassed. Also hand made guns exist. That is what would scare me most about banning guns. Redneck gun enthuists that have some skill in making shit making guns. You'd have a range from dangerous due to poorly designed to expertly crafted overkill that even we in America woulda banned.

---

The problem is Republican leaders think this is a real, direct attack against them. Like they feel they're in danger because of the stuff OP suggested then they tell their low .i.q. followers the same thing and that's how shit don't get done in this country.

skermac posted...

i think all guns should have something integrated that makes it disabled when pointed at a human

Then how are people going to defend their home when a home invader breaks in?

---

Legalize all guns, ban bullets.

---

The only way to enforce a universal background check is through a national registry. And, as history has shown, has led to "voluntary" buybacks, with the option of jail if you decide not to volunteer.

---

We just need to ban white men.

---

Why not make gun education and training mandatory in every school?

Teach kids how to properly handle and deal with guns in every day life. How they are not toys to be played with and the danger they possess.

---

Gun culture in the US is just fucking stupid. The more we normalize saying that outloud, the more comfortable politicians will feel in systematically dismantling it.

---

Middle hope posted...

Why not make gun education and training mandatory in every school?

Teach kids how to properly handle and deal with guns in every day life. How they are not toys to be played with and the danger they possess.

We kinda did when I was in virginia. It was hunting safety class so we only dealt with shotguns and rifles. We didnt deal with live ammo ofc cause it was 6th grade. But at the end we got a little piece of paper that said we met the expecations to be able to get a hunting liscense

---

Pepys Monster posted...

It's just a modern rifle. Why should a semi-auto rifle be banned just because it fires an intermediate caliber and doesn't have an old-fashioned monte carlo stock? An AR-15 is ideal for both home defense (you can buy frangible rounds, or soft-nosed bullets, which police use), and punching paper at the range.

I never said it should be banned and I dont think it should be; I said its not a practical weapon to own. A glock is way more useful for the average citizen.

---

Payzmaykr posted...

I never said it should be banned and I dont think it should be; I said its not a practical weapon to own. A glock is way more useful for the average citizen.

Honestly I've seen people shoot. Rifles are easier to be accurate with. As much as I love handguns their only advantage is easier to carry around imo

---

mooreandrew58 posted...

Honestly I've seen people shoot. Rifles are easier to be accurate with. As much as I love handguns their only advantage is easier to carry around imo

Rifles also require you to use both hands and sometimes your body to brace the gun.

Ivany2008 posted...

Rifles also require you to use both hands and sometimes your body to brace the gun.

The increase in accuracy is worth it. Using your body to help brace the gun also helps accuracy. I think thats why attachable stocks for hand guns is a thing

---

mooreandrew58 posted...

The increase in accuracy is worth it. Using your body to help brace the gun also helps accuracy. I think thats why attachable stocks for hand guns is a thing

yep. I think I'm more fine with home owners owning rifles/shotguns than pistols. Less chances for fuck ups, as those things aren't exactly light. I remember holding my grandfathers old military rifle back when I was 9 or 10 and it weighed a good 10-15 lbs.

Ivany2008 posted...

yep. I think I'm more fine with home owners owning rifles/shotguns than pistols. Less chances for fuck ups, as those things aren't exactly light. I remember holding my grandfathers old military rifle back when I was 9 or 10 and it weighed a good 10-15 lbs.

Think thats the point of modern military style rifles. Idk cause ive never held one but they look lighter

And yeah handguns are more meant for something light and easy to carry on your person.

---