>


I'm okay with it because I'm against collective punishment, I thought we as a society had agreed that punishing people for crimes they didn't commit was unjust.

Having to follow laws is not a punishment.
I have stopped trying to get people to understand that regulation, licensing and training requirements are the key to a safe gun loving country. These things don’t take away any rights, they just insure more responsibility and education. No one on the right wants to listen.  As a person who is trained and have a concealed carry permit I find myself carrying more often because I no longer trust my fellow citizens.  Gun safety is out the window in the US. >


I have stopped trying to get people to understand that regulation, licensing and training requirements are the key to a safe gun loving country. These things don’t take away any rights,

They do limit rights though. 
Just imagine your theory applied to any other Constitutional right.
Imagine if you had to take a weekend course on the nature of representative democracy and apply for a license before you were allowed to peaceably assemble, or exercise your freedom of speech, or if you had to take a test before you were allowed to vote (as has been tried in the Jim Crow South to disastrous results). Those would be laughed out of court as obvious infringements on one's constitutional rights.
Education and training about both democracy and firearms are indeed important, but making them a legal requirement before those rights can be exercised does indeed limit one's rights. >

You are applying absolutism. These are apples and oranges arguments. Unrestricted firearms infringe my rights to life and liberty. >


Unrestricted firearms infringe my rights to life and liberty.

No they don't >

Yes, they do. >

Not as long as insecure zealots continue to tie their fragile identities to guns >

We fear government overreach. You won't fear it until it's too late. >

Ohh like Ron DeSantis is doing in Florida suggesting a bill with makes trans people register themselves? Or preventing COVID death data from being published? >

There’s a difference between registering guns and registering people…right? 
Also I think people assume I’m talking about gun registration in a vacuum. I believe gun legislation accompanied by a universal basic income, single payer health insurance, and gun laws work together to protect the rights of gun owners, while also ensuring responsible ownership. They’re not mutually exclusive. >

every other developed nation has solved this >

There any many developed countries you can get guns in.  They have mass shootings, too.  Canada for one.  We just have more because we have poorer access to mental care and more lax gun laws. >


We just have more because we have poorer access to mental care

Mental health care in the US is actually among the best in the world.  
Go to Japan or India and see how non-existent their mental health care is.  Funny how it doesn't lead to mass shootings every month in those countries. 
Just more excuses. >

I said access.  Not quality.  It's expensive here.  And guns are not allowed in those countries. >


I said access. Not quality. It's expensive here.

If it's not available at all, then how expensive it is is irrelevant. 

And guns are not allowed in those countries.

Exactly.  That's the real reason.  A depressed and suicidal person can do a lot more damage with a gun than a boxcutter or steak knife. >

My post was comparing US to countries that allow guns.  Obviously, in countries w strict no gun laws, mass shooting will be almost nonexistent. >

But even in other countries that allow guns, they are tightly regulated and much harder to access.  No other country in the world has anywhere near the amount of guns the US does. >

That's what I said in my post. >

Then it seems we agree! >

Prices coming down. We're stocking up. >

This. Prices have been crazy for years. Now they are more reasonable. >

I miss the days when I could grab a 1200rd wooden case of HSM 5.56 ammo for $150. >

No. >

We’ve accepted Dead Kids are worth having access to guns. >

And you accept that freedom is worth giving up for safety. >

Yes, and may I ask, what freedoms do dead children get to exercise?
Edit: oh right none. I’m more than willing to give up or at least regulate personal freedoms which ensure future generations don’t have to practice shooting drills. >

Giving up Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion and Freedom of the Press along with the 2nd Amendment to a benevolent dictator will stop all child deaths be they gun violence or things such as childhood obesity. >

What a fucking title. It was not sufficient to claim that scary scary black rifles cause mass shootings, which is the most vapid, intellectually lazy nonsense ever conceived. Now bullet sales cause murders. This is obviously true because "bullet sales" have been typeset in the same sentence as "death totals" and "mass shootings". See the connection? The words are in close proximity. Can't you logic good? >

Background check requirements and quantity limits of some arbitrary number of cartridges at point of sale will somehow stop mass shooters.
Yet during their sprees, the vast majority fire a number of rounds still obtainable under various suggested purchase quantity limits.
Apparently, the unending parade of mass shooters who already pass a background check to purchase their firearm would be thwarted if only one more background check was done. >

"Laws don't work, so let's not have any laws!" >

"The laws we have don't work, so let's pass more laws that won't work." >


"The laws we have don't work, so let's pass more laws that won't work."

"The gun control will increase until morale improves" >

Go watch the daily show piece on Switzerland. Maybe if Americans could get their heads out of their asses then we might have a chance. But I doubt it. Everyone wants to cling on to a document we drafted when we didn’t want British rule. >

Short answer. No. Even if there was political will, the courts are so Stacked at this point it would never pass the first lawsuit. Maybe in 2 generations. Sorry generation after Z and the next. >

ANY restrictions on gun ownership is inherently anti-liberal, regressive, and a threat to democracy. How can anyone look at this country, look at the state of our police, look at the abuses of power our government commits daily, and say they should be the only ones with the means to defend themselves? >


ANY restrictions on gun ownership is inherently anti-liberal, regressive, and a threat to democracy. 

You're right, that's why America is the only democracy left in the world.  /s >

We should, at a bare minimum,  tax gun and ammo sales to pay for all health care costs from gun violence.  It's beyond obscene that shooting victims have to play the GoFundMe lottery to recieve adequate healthcare without going bankrupt. >

You haven’t thought this through. Taxing guns and ammo means that only the rich can defend themselves. >

That's the goal of Democrats >

It's so cute to see Republicans suddenly pretend to care about the poor when it comes to gun rights. >

Not all gun owners are republicans. People should be able to defend themselves. Not everyone lives in a suburb, some people live in rough cities. And I’m a democrat, lived in major cities my whole life. I was anti gun until I’ve been robbed at gun point, and jumped by some dick heads when me and my girl were just at the shore. I live in a city where police arrival time is over 7 mins if they come at all… this is the unfortunate truth about some people’s lives. I don’t wish to cause harm to anyone, but I have a wife and family members I need to get home to. >

Yep. I’m in the same boat. Not democrat, but definitely liberal. I became pro gun watching police gun people down and mercilessly beat people for no reason. I need to defend my family, from anyone including the government. >

I’m not really sure what I am politically anymore, def not republican. It’s all just semantics to me at this point… at the end of the day I’m a regular dude. That wants to get home at night. And as a minority I don’t want my right to defend myself against racists and other extreme individuals messed with. people can still catch these hands any day tho. Lol >

100%. >

nope >

I can cast my own handgun bullets, as long as I can still get brass, powder, and primers. >

Don't forget your fishing pole. >

No. There can be no returning from the cliff that SCOTUS has taken us over with their corrupt decision that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is actually two independent sentences, despite the clear comma and the fact that the first "Sentence" is not a sentence. >

We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas >

They should try that old Chris Rock bit.  All guns are legal, but bullets are 5K each. >

Repealing the 2nd Amendment is the only way >

If you think this wouldn’t be the end of American democracy, you are fooling yourself so hard. >

Free speech is more important than guns. >

Absolutely. But both are incredibly important. >

Naw one is significantly more important than the other. One is secondary to the other, without freedom of speech, violence becomes it. >

I’d argue they are impossible to separate from each other. Freedoms only exist if with the ability to uphold that freedom, through violence is absolutely necessary. While yes, freedom of expression is vastly more important in a vacuum, it will not exist wide long without the freedom to defend yourself against those who silence others >

Yes, all ammunition should be heavily taxed to create a fund for victims of gun violence. >

Please explain how that isn’t a racially discriminatory law. >

Explain to me how it is. >

Machina pretty much covered it. Creating economic restrictions on firearms, ammo, or other self defense measures essentially makes it so that poor and marginalized communities have less access than rich communities. This disproportionately effects racial minorities, women, and victims of violence. >

It's almost like there's a correlation... >

You can predict per Capita gun deaths using per Capita gun ownership. >

Can the bullets be stopped? Sure, school kids are great for that. And people that are against gun control laws are fine with that. >

With Common Sense Gun Regulations the deaths can be stopped. But as long as there are enough GOP congress members to prevent these laws it won't happen. >

The south has risen. >

Those advocating for fewer gun laws can always begin by advocating for the abolition of the 2nd Amendment, right? >

I hope so. I'm starting to believe in a singularity with these guns. 
Sick people will commit atrocities with guns.
Some people will fight to remove the guns, others will get guns themselves. 
This cycle will continue. Then at some event filled with just the right people,  there will be a massive shoot out. 
The untrained will shoot, the trained will shoot back and neither will know who they're shooting at.  
I don't believe any human, even soldiers, can react well enough to an unprompted undistinguishable entity firing at them.  
It's going to be a complete fucking disaster.  Especially if you put a bunch of untrained individuals with an idealized sense of self worth tied to a gilded image of what America is and believe their enemies "look" a certain way at the singularity. 
I personally don't like guns. They're too final.  Even if I did,  I would NEVER pull one out if I'm a part of a crowd being shot at. The wrong person will look at a colored person with a gun, shoot first and later lie about everything they saw to make they're shooting justified. >

No >

It depends on how high the price of bullets goes to.  At $1000 per bullet, I doubt that you would ever have a mass shooting again.  ( Eddie Murphy suggested this a long time ago. ) >

Umm, let’s stop the psychos first…you know, the root of the actual problem…pfft lemmings >

We are more likely to solve faster-than-light travel than this impossible conundrum of more bullets = more deaths. >

‘Merica >

Not if Republicans have a say. >

Hate to break it to you, a ton of democrats support the second amendment. Hell, most do. >

The majority of Americans want more strict gun control.
92% of Democrats support more strict gun control.

92% of Democrats and 54% of independents say it's more important to control gun violence, while 70% of Republicans say it's more important to protect gun rights.

The fuck am I being downvoted for? >

Not without repealing the 2nd amendment or getting a Supreme Court that overturns DC v. Heller. So realistically no, we can’t stop them. >

Or expanding the supreme court. They seem overworked and could use about 4 more helpers. >

That would be one possible way of getting a Supreme Court that will overturn DC v. Heller. >

But let's say nothing about the outrageous number of non covid deaths hitting the westerworld that are  going to bankrupt our health and insurance systems in the next few years due to all these new exotic mystery deaths. >

Restrict the supply of primers to manufacturers and limit sales to the public. ban imports. >

not as long as republicans control things with minority rule through illegal gerrymandering. >

The constitution should never be a suicide pact. It’s clear the 2nd Amendment stands in the way of effective policy. We should either remove it or adjust its language. If this angers you, then please explain why you are ok with more gun deaths. Because it is crystal clear that more gun regulations lead to fewer gun deaths. >

I'm okay with it because I'm against collective punishment, I thought we as a society had agreed that punishing people for crimes they didn't commit was unjust.