Muh Guns, Too

[archibaldcrane]

Five people are dead after being shot in a Texas home by a suspect armed with AR-15 style rifle in a horrific series of "execution style" shootings, police said.

The incident occurred at 11:31 p.m. local time on Friday when officials from the San Jacinto County Sheriff's Office received a call about harassment in the town of Cleveland, about 55 miles north of Houston.

When authorities arrived at the location, they found several victims shot at the property, police said. Three of the deceased were females and two were males, including the youngest, an 8-year-old boy.

...

Police said they believe the massacre occurred after neighbors asked the suspect to stop shooting his gun in the front yard because there was a baby trying to sleep.

"My understanding is that the victims, they came over to the fence and said 'Hey could [you not do your] shooting out in the yard? We have a young baby that's trying to go to sleep," and he had been drinking and he says 'I'll do what I want to in my front yard,'" San Jacinto County Sheriff Greg Capers told KTRK.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/5-dead-tex...ry?id=98957271

Suspect still on the loose

[Lucavi]

Raising a baby in a warzone. Tough stuff.

[chazzyphizzle]

what a badass

[Vaspinne]

Horrendous mass shooting? Just another day in Texas

https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/st...KzmrV-eiQ&s=19

[Outlaw]

I'm starting to wonder about this whole, "right to bear arms deal".

I mean half of the US is drunk or crazy all the time now. Oh, but let people buy tools made for killing with absolutely no restrictions. This will just continue to happen.

Sent from my SM-A505U1 using Tapatalk

[Zealot]

Tools are tools, weapons are weapons. Guns are weapons. They have no purpose except for killing other things; if you're using a gun for something other than killing, you're using it incorrectly.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

[Byrthnoth]

Tools are tools, weapons are weapons. Guns are weapons. They have no purpose except for killing other things; if you're using a gun for something other than killing, you're using it incorrectly.

I appreciate the vibes, but weapons are tools for killing and this post needs a logical refactor.

[Zealot]

"Tool" to me speaks to some constructive purpose.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

[Tymon]

The absolutely overwhelming majority of gun violence happens from folks that absolutely did not pay for their gun. That's why a lot more than purchase restrictions and background checks have to happen. Those things don't impact probably 90% of CURRENT gun violence.

You really just have to ban guns. All of them. Take them back too. All of them. It literally is the only thing shown to work.

[Jaybar]

"If you give a man a hammer, he will treat every problem like a nail."

Something something guns, too.

[arus2001]

Just sticking to my guns (huehue) that the whole "well-regulated" part of the 2A is something we've ultimately been slacking on. Obviously, it's dumb you can just stroll into a store and buy a weapon of war that no common citizen needs, but that's just scratching the surface. People steal them from stores. People steal them from other people. People buy them on whatever you wanna call the "black market" in this situation, too. Perhaps including gun shows. Regardless, AR style weaponry needs to be both harder to get and maintain ownership of.

Personally, I'm a fan of requiring pricey insurance for anything that isn't a revolver or basic shotgun. Those have their purposes for self-defense or land protection while being far more difficult to stroll into a school with and tally up a high death count. Subsequently, when the inevitable tragedy does happen, funds will exist for hospital bills, funerals, or general family needs. Hoping there's a good guy around with a gun isn't insurance. Hoping criminals off themselves after isn't a guarantee, either. Actually regulated militias can also be funded through this to maintain proper armories and make sure members are properly trained (including responses to various types of scenarios that justify deployment) and well in the head.

Once you're past a certain number of owned firearms, mandatory yearly inspections should also be a thing. Not just to make sure the weapons are safe to use, but that they're accounted for. This time can also be used to review incidents involving the owner and people with immediate access. Domestic abuse call? They probably shouldn't have them. Drunken confrontations? Not the best look, either. Mental health concerns? Same story.

From there, we should be incentivizing no-strings turn-in programs. Submit a gun for cross-reference ownership, any possible crime, and eventual destruction, get a check. Inclined to say the same for ammo. The nuts may cling to their whole SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED bullshit, but this is going to be a far more amicable approach than expecting a bunch of cops or the military to stroll into homes to confiscate things. It's a slow approach that would likely take generations alongside the above execution, but the country has to ween itself off its gun problem somehow.

Of course, I'd like smart guns to be more of a thing, too.

[Tymon]

Complete unilateral ban of all firearms outside of a licensed and approved owner's home unless kept in locked cases would be a start. Basically what you have to do to take guns on a plane except that's everywhere except your house or designated hunting land (or your land, ofc) in which case the trip to and from would also require the aforementioned locking and storing.

Yes that does mean your concealed carry no longer applies. Or open carry. Or any carry. Fuck off.

That alone would reduce gun theft by an enormous amount. Basically would have to carry out home invasions of lawful gun owners to get their stuff, in which case good fucking luck. Or know when they're not home.

Also make theft of firearms a serious felony with 10+ years imprisonment. Also make ALLOWING the theft of YOUR guns an equal penalty.

You went on vacation and left your guns out and somebody broke in and took them? Enjoy your decade in jail. Lock them up when you're gone or be ready to use them when you're there.

Your kid went on a rampage with your guns for literally any reason? You both get the federal death penalty. Expedited.

I'd say lock them up when you're home too, but that raises a very legitimate argument that they serve zero purpose for home defense if it takes longer to get to them than it does the perpetrator to break in and shoot you.

[Byrthnoth]

Imo the gun violence debate is stupid in a couple of ways:
1. It is obvious that if we had fewer guns, we would have fewer gun deaths.
2. Guns only kill like 50k people per year, about 55/45 suicide/violence
3. We have an outsized impression of gun violence because of "if it bleeds it leads" media coverage, particularly of mass shootings
4. Debates about gun regulation are incredibly polarizing and alienate basically all rural voters, who have grown up using guns for sport
5. The policy proposals that a rural voters would support (stuff short of a total ban) are ineffective at stopping gun deaths.
6. The gun deaths that give the most oxygen to the anti-gun movement (mass shootings) are probably also some of the most difficult to affect with policies short of a total ban

For comparison, chronic liver disease/cirrhosis also kill about 56k per year. If we had to choose between banning guns and regulating alcohol to try and prevent people from becoming alcoholics, which would we pick? If alcohol, why isn't it talked about at all?

Moving further up the causes of American deaths, you get a bunch of obesity things. Should we be taking another look at Bloomberg's soda ban? Or literally trying anything to try and prevent Americans from getting obese? It is a way larger public health crisis than firearms.

My answer to these is basically that we don't deal with these other issues because there aren't mass shootings equivalent events associated with them and the political parties aren't already polarized along their lines. Still, I don't think we should pretend that guns are the #1 or even #10 crisis that the ineffectual twats we elect to Congress should be dealing with. They are a political live wire that idiot Democrats cannot stop touching because the ideal policy is so clear.

[Cyn]

Hey bro, we only do knee-jerk responses making unconstitutional suggestions that would give the right wing Supreme Court all that it needed to throw more gun laws out the window around here.

[Uzor]

For comparison, chronic liver disease/cirrhosis also kill about 56k per year. If we had to choose between banning guns and regulating alcohol to try and prevent people from becoming alcoholics, which would we pick? If alcohol, why isn't it talked about at all?

I was unaware alcoholism was such a huge problem in schools. /s

As for regulation; it works in pretty much every other nation on earth. It has worked in the US previously too.

If regulations and bans don’t work, why do we have driver’s licenses? Laws for when/where it is legal to drink? Traffic laws? Seatbelts? Banning books or HBTQ information? Abortion bans? Literally anything else banned or regulated in the U.S?

Why is it apparently only an issue for guns and nothing else?

For guns it's always "Bans and regulations never works for anything." For literally anything else in the U.S it seems to be "We need more bans and regulations", even though conservatism is all about less government regulations.

Guns were literally banned at the NRA convention when Trump spoke. But no, gun regulations never do anything to protect children. Only assholes.

[Salodin]

Imo the gun violence debate is stupid in a couple of ways:
1. It is obvious that if we had fewer guns, we would have fewer gun deaths.
2. Guns only kill like 50k people per year, about 55/45 suicide/violence
3. We have an outsized impression of gun violence because of "if it bleeds it leads" media coverage, particularly of mass shootings
4. Debates about gun regulation are incredibly polarizing and alienate basically all rural voters, who have grown up using guns for sport
5. The policy proposals that a rural voters would support (stuff short of a total ban) are ineffective at stopping gun deaths.
6. The gun deaths that give the most oxygen to the anti-gun movement (mass shootings) are probably also some of the most difficult to affect with policies short of a total ban

For comparison, chronic liver disease/cirrhosis also kill about 56k per year. If we had to choose between banning guns and regulating alcohol to try and prevent people from becoming alcoholics, which would we pick? If alcohol, why isn't it talked about at all?

Moving further up the causes of American deaths, you get a bunch of obesity things. Should we be taking another look at Bloomberg's soda ban? Or literally trying anything to try and prevent Americans from getting obese? It is a way larger public health crisis than firearms.

My answer to these is basically that we don't deal with these other issues because there aren't mass shootings equivalent events associated with them and the political parties aren't already polarized along their lines. Still, I don't think we should pretend that guns are the #1 or even #10 crisis that the ineffectual twats we elect to Congress should be dealing with. They are a political live wire that idiot Democrats cannot stop touching because the ideal policy is so clear.

Yeah this is nice and all but the number 1 cause of childhood deaths is by bullet, even moreso than motor vehicle crash. Idk if that's a "small" deal not worth tackling over say obesity or something.

Cold blooded murder is cold blooded murder

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[arus2001]

Yeah, it'd be awesome to tackle obesity, but banning soda isn't the ticket there. Also a pretty apples to hand grenades comparison since a guy ODing on Big Macs over decades isn't taking people to the grave with him.

Frankly, to pull it off, we'd need to address multiple issues. Front and center would be the accessibility and cost of healthy foods. The second factor is time or convenience, which ties into pay and the prevailing issue of our minimum wage not keeping up with inflation. Pay folks better, they can spend less time working, and in turn have more time to partake in exercise or hobbies that interest them. The final point is simply expanding adult activity options that aren't just a gym or some fad du jour like spin, crossfit, or whatever.

But much like how big pharma profits more from treatments over cures, keeping folks overworked and unhealthy benefits the capitalist machine at large. Can't forget that republican urge to constantly cut youth lunch programs across the country, or stuff like meals on wheels for the elderly.

[kuronosan]

Imo the gun violence debate is stupid in a couple of ways ...

... For comparison, chronic liver disease/cirrhosis also kill about 56k per year. If we had to choose between banning guns and regulating alcohol to try and prevent people from becoming alcoholics, which would we pick? If alcohol, why isn't it talked about at all?

... Moving further up the causes of American deaths, you get a bunch of obesity things. Should we be taking another look at Bloomberg's soda ban? Or literally trying anything to try and prevent Americans from getting obese? It is a way larger public health crisis than firearms.

... My answer to these is basically that we don't deal with these other issues because there aren't mass shootings equivalent events associated with them and the political parties aren't already polarized along their lines.

I'm sorry, alcohol causes more than just cirrhosis and liver disease and the related deaths are way higher than that.

You raise some interesting questions, but I would argue as the janitor on the front lines of these particular issues that the reason they aren't combated is because America prides itself on two things: individualism and money. When there is industry to be had, America will find a way to capitalize on it and there just isn't the interest in controlling these health issues when both the cause and outcome make money (food/alcohol vs hospitals/health care).

The reason doing something about gun control could be both substantial and effective is because, unlike the above two issues you mentioned, we have no interventions in place that could be implemented and too many loopholes to close. These are preventable deaths, but almost instantaneous ones as well. Liver disease alcohol only kills you, and slowly. Sure, you could argue it impacts your family or others and we could go down a rabbit hole of "well look what other problems it causes", but at the end of the day you can walk away from an alcoholic and if/when they kill someone, justice is typically served. We don't have laws that give them the right to drink until they kill someone. We hold them responsible.

With regard to obesity, you can't eat until someone else dies. You can't eat so much terrible food for yourself that someone else has a stroke by proxy. This is a behavior that kills you, and only you. Not only that, years have been spent developing drugs for weight loss, reducing cholesterol, fighting secondary diabetes, etc. These are *chronic* illnesses.

So neither is really comparable, because both have been studied with experts agreeing on appropriate interventions and making every attempt to minimize lives affected by it.

Currently, NOTHING is being done about this issue that's now happening more often, and actively being given carte blanche to worsen by encouraging citizens to protect themselves from "the enemy" while passing laws that allow them to get away with it. It's the exact opposite of what needs to happen.

Perhaps the reason you believe there are more pressing issues that need addressing is not because there aren't, but because you don't see gun control as a health issue. But when I read about my colleagues having to bury a child they couldn't save because a bullet tore them to pieces or I have to answer a consult for a suicidal patient who is now paralyzed from the waist down, I don't know that I really have the wherewithal to make a debate out of "but what about liver disease and obesity".

What about them?

[thetruepandagod]

i get sexually and spiritually excited when i see people clamoring for a total gun ban which will never happen

[Koyangi]

I was unaware alcoholism was such a huge problem in schools. /s

As for regulation; it works in pretty much every other nation on earth. It has worked in the US previously too.

If regulations and bans don’t work, why do we have driver’s licenses? Laws for when/where it is legal to drink? Traffic laws? Seatbelts? Banning books or HBTQ information? Abortion bans? Literally anything else banned or regulated in the U.S?

Why is it apparently only an issue for guns and nothing else?

For guns it's always "Bans and regulations never works for anything." For literally anything else in the U.S it seems to be "We need more bans and regulations", even though conservatism is all about less government regulations.

Guns were literally banned at the NRA convention when Trump spoke. But no, gun regulations never do anything to protect children. Only assholes.

Because none of those things are protected by an amendment.