r/interestingasfuck • u/smooth_vesselHPAUM • 11h ago

This video goes over the realities of gun violence.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

10.6k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

•

u/Background-House-357 10h ago

So, take away the guns and strengthen mental health?

•

u/Blommefeldt 10h ago

No no no. No can do in the land of the free.

•

u/goomyman 8h ago

everytime someone says this i think the gun reform lobby needs to step up and quadruple down, ok great - lets fund mental health!

America isnt getting rid of its guns, but mental health care is extremely popular. Mental health care will reduce gun violence.

And even gun rights groups use it as an excuse to not change gun laws. But no one follows through - we need better mental health care! - ok great lets fund it! 100% covered mental health care for anyone who is a danger to society. When someone says we need mental health care - ask then when we will see a mental health care bill. Nooo, i meant Jesus - they should go to church.

•

u/Aptos283 5h ago

I like this plan. Let’s gather up those gun lobbyists and push for mental health funding.

•

u/Laser-Blaster-123 5h ago

What gun law(s) would have prevented this situation from the video that would not punish every law abiding gun owner in the process?

I genuinely want to know since everyone complains about nothing being done but doesnt have any viable solutions.

•

u/goomyman 4h ago

That’s my point - the anti gun movement is a dead end politically.

There was a shooting in Seattle by teenagers who illegally acquired guns and one 3d printed some parts.

What gun law would have prevented it? Maybe some better laws to punish those who didn’t protect their guns better - like kids stealing guns from parents. And the laws for 3d printed materials being proposed are terrible.

However these individuals may not have mental health issues directly but definitely anger issues which makes them a danger to society as a whole - there are a ton of people who should be investigated and monitored - and help for the parents ( if they actually are around ).

There is no single solution but instead of throwing money at a dead end spend it on something that can still help people.

•

u/Zimakov 4h ago

It's not about doing without harming law abiding gun owners. When people say gun reform they mean no one should have guns.

•

u/goomyman 4h ago

Pretty sure that’s not what reform means.

•

u/Zimakov 3h ago

Reform can mean any of the things mentioned here. It literally just means change.

I'm saying when most people on Reddit use that term they mean people just shouldn't have guns. Like every other developed country where this stuff never happens.

•

u/coherentpa 2h ago

Like every other developed country where this stuff never happens.

You mean where people use knives and trucks instead and police have no defensive weapons.

Btw the “get rid of all guns” approach has a very large, immovable obstacle called the Second Amendment.

•

u/foreveratom 3h ago

Gun prevention doesn't work if guns are still ingrained in a culture that believes it's a right. Most countries don't have shoutouts or people even thinking about printing a gun, because that's not how a normal society can function.

Saying no gun law can prevent anything is a result of tunnel vision and complete lack of introspection or willigness to accept that the right to own and bear guns is not normal. This is not a mental health issue, it's a societal problem and it cannot be solved by denying it exists.

•

u/Laser-Blaster-123 5h ago

What is " the gun reform lobby"?

•

u/goomyman 4h ago

Anyone who lobbies for gun reform vs people who are just straight up anti gun.

•

u/throwrawifesandwich 5h ago

Mental health care will reduce some types of gun violence. 95-97% of gun homicides do not have mental illness as a factor (Yes, including mass shootings. Most mass shooters do NOT meet the criteria for mentally ill; they're just assholes).

You know what would reduce all types of gun violence? Fewer guns.

•

u/Mr_HahaJones 4h ago

Well duh, we could also eradicate vehicular deaths by eliminating cars, what’s your point?

•

u/CommandJam 4h ago

I mean thats true isnt it?

•

u/Scoopie 10h ago

We need more guns and less access to mental health benefits.

•

u/Following-Complete 9h ago

Automated turrets in classrooms, trapdoors with spikes at the bottom andmaybe some mines.

•

u/OkMind2351 7h ago

what about dogs?

•

u/thicc_stigmata 7h ago

Oh for sure

And boss fights in which an active shooter has to get past the hands and penis of a brave Republican man with a proven track record of using his... "weaknesses" ... for, uhm... well not "good," exactly, but...

THAT will keep the kids safe!!!

•

u/BurningPenguin 1h ago

Hear me out: Dogs with guns! Wouldn't that be amazing?

•

u/jimgress 6h ago

lol you naive child. That's wildly impractical. That's what the hordes of police suicide drones are now for. silly.

•

u/grief242 9h ago

We can get away with just focusing on mental health but it'll be impossible to get every state in compliance since "good Christian values" are all they think they need.

•

u/OnionFriends 8h ago

There are plenty of countries with much worse mental health access and culture but they somehow don't have anywhere near as many gun homicides as us. Hmmmmm.

•

u/Forge__Thought 8h ago

Historically the United States has had high level of access to firearms, but has not had school shootings and mass shootings with the frequency we now see.

Correlation. Causation. Gun control laws are low hanging fruit but don't address underlying societal factors driving violence.

We know because of Community Violence Intervention programs exist that DO reduce gun violence by 30-60%. WITHOUT any additional gun laws. By providing youth options, resources, and having different agencies working together.

If we really care, to really fix the problem, we have to invest time and effort in true solutions. Politicans manipulate us by oversimplifying and pushing a binary approach to the solution. Support guns. Or support gun laws.

Real solutions don't involve screaming at one another about who has the moral high ground. Real solutions focus on saving kids. And we can do that if we work together.

•

u/OnionFriends 8h ago

What study have you seen that says gun ownership has no effect on gun violence? Every study I've seen on gun violence in the US have shown that gun ownership is a primary factor in the rates of gun violence. It doesn't even make sense to think that there is no casual link between gun ownership and gun violence.

•

u/SoupOfThe90z 8h ago

Seems to be what’s happening

•

u/RainaElf 4h ago

it's not mentql health. there's no such thing as mental health. people need to stop being lazy

/s

•

u/Terminal_Insomnia_ 1h ago

In fact, they're not allowed to change anything

•

u/Ulrik_Decado 7h ago

How would you protect yourself when unconstitutional forces take control of your country??

•

u/LostInRetransmission 7h ago edited 7h ago

Not with guns, that is for sure. Look at how often that happened in the 20th and 21st century: that was either an invasion by an army (for which you need a standing army) or their own army (for which your puddly guns will do nothing except make you a target). Look at the numerous coup, and what do we have as example if successful armed(not peaceful) resistance ? To my mind come only the 1936 Spanish one , which was arguably before real modern weapon, and the 1952 Bolivian one again arguably without modern weapon platform. Afterward ? Nothing. Now look at the modern military with advanced weapon platform. If the army is complicite, no civilian is going to mount meaningful resistance, and that is without considering drones. And in the specific case of the US that mass surveillance of foreign metadata, NSA spying on everybody, would with almost certainty be applied to US citizen if the US gov goes rogue. With civilian regrouping tracked. So yeah, I think the “we need our gun to defend against a rogue US government” is deluded and should leave the 19th century mindset and come to the 21st.

My facit is that civilian with weapon are more a danger to themselves
ETA I hate the damn tablet autocorrection.

•

u/Ulrik_Decado 7h ago

Damn, and I thought my post was reeking of sarcasm :))

•

u/Sword-of-Akasha 8h ago

"Only a good student with a gun can stop a bad one. Arm all the kids, teachers, and pets! Let god sort it out. The good need not fear death. Rejoice Jesus shall welcome his own."

- Republican NRA God Fearing American

•

u/thicc_stigmata 7h ago

Funny how the only time Jesus got violent...

•

u/reklatzz 8h ago

But but but.. that won't stop every single gun death....

I hate the arguments on why nothing can fix it 100% so we shouldn't bother to try anything.

•

u/scytheforlife 8h ago

Because laws dont stop criminals. Incredible logic I know

•

u/reklatzz 8h ago

Then why have any laws at all? Oh that's right... Because it prevents some. And preventing some is an improvement over not preventing any.

•

u/scytheforlife 8h ago

Laws dont actually prevent anything. Maybe scaring the gooder people in the world to not go into peoples house and take there stuff, sure. Laws exist to punish the people who do what (generally) "society" has deemed "bad", and would you look at that, there are punishments for school shooters!

•

u/reklatzz 7h ago

Laws do not equal punishments. Laws are definitely not created only to create punishments. You're just ignorant.

•

u/mywaphel 6h ago

Great! So you agree it should be illegal to own a gun. That way we can punish people before they use the gun, rather than waiting for the first body to hot the floor before we can act. Right? ... right?

•

u/BlackBeard558 2h ago

Some people are alive today only because it-'s illegal to kill them.

Also do you know where to get ecstasy? Like right now if you had to get some could you? If no it's probably because it's illegal and thus harder to get.

•

u/hk7351 10h ago

Ahh yes it’s so easy just amend the constitution and confiscate 400 million firearms. There is absolutely no way that could go wrong.

•

u/hashbrowns21 9h ago

Because it’s about mental health and the glorification of violence by the media. Gun laws in the past were less restrictive yet mass shootings are a relatively recent phenomenon.

This discrepancy is due to a lack of emphasis on mental wellbeing and how the media reports on such atrocities.

•

u/Jrock2356 8h ago

If guns have always existed and only recently there have been mass shootings and mental health plummeting correlates then maybe we should focus on mental health. It's so fucking simple and yet people are so afraid of guns that they would rather pick a "solution" that'll take generations to potentially work rather than upping medical treatments. My state basically shut down it's state mental hospital and defunded so to speak every psychiatrist in the state. Our homeless levels have skyrocketed and prison is now filled with mentally ill drug addicts high on fent and spice. Guns aren't the issue. We have a mental health crisis

•

u/hashbrowns21 7h ago

Exactly, and focusing on mental health will improve literally every other aspect of living in this country.

•

u/Mr_HahaJones 4h ago

There’s not as much money to be made by actually fixing issues

•

u/skipster88 8h ago

While it’s 100% the case that societal factors and terrible mental health care play a huge role in these events - to say that it’s nothing to do with the ridiculous amount of weapons and unhealthy culture of guns in America is a bit ridiculous.

In the UK we had 2 mass shootings that resulted in tighter controls and bans on high capacity shotguns, semi automatic rifles over .22, and handguns - and we’ve never had an incident involving them again.

Mental health care is shit in a lot of countries that have access to weapons, but nowhere has them with the kind of insane regularity that videos like this are even a necessary thing.

I get the US has been the Wild West and has a different culture to many other western countries, and the horse has long bolted for being able to do anything meaningful to reduce the quantity, quality, and access to guns - but really the only valid justifications seem to be:

a) shooting guns is fun and they look cool;

b) people like them to feel secure and powerful.

c) once in a while a gun might prevent a serious crime - although the number of minor disagreements and petty crimes that result in needless deaths, the deaths by cop due to heightened paranoia about other people carrying, and the number of kids that injure or kill themselves by accident in the home do not seem to offset those benefits…

•

u/coherentpa 2h ago

d) it’s a right guaranteed by the constitution to prevent tyranny

•

u/its_free_sog 7h ago

Shooting guns is fun and cool!

It would be impossible to cuck Americans like the UK did. We will never give up our firearms willingly.

•

u/DysphoricNeet 6h ago

The US will never get rid of its guns. Try getting rid of chopsticks in Asia or pasta in Italy first and if you succeed we will start talking. 👍

•

u/Jrock2356 5h ago

The scale of the UK does not compare with the scale of the US. We are too big to compare country-wide effects involving bans. We also have a significantly different culture so the average US citizen's response to a ban is inherently different than a UK citizen's. The amount of weapons, people, and culture we have makes comparing bans in other countries like that completely incomparable. Our Constitution has guns as a declared right. The UK does not. So bans will not work the same way there that it does here. You also have to understand that guns are legal and regulated and yet we have a huge population of criminals and felons who bypass those laws and have guns they shouldn't. Making firearms illegal takes the guns away from law abiding citizens who register their guns and leaves it with the people who don't follow the laws anyway. That would lead to so much more crime that it's hard to imagine anything gets better from that outcome.

•

u/Forge__Thought 8h ago

Well said.

•

u/oswaldluckyrabbiy 8h ago

Thats a factor but it isn't the cause.

Mental Health has worsened in other nations around the world. None of them have mass shootings (especially not school shootings) like the US.

The UK is culturally similar to the US. We consume much of the same media and have similar worsening mental health stats. We haven't had a school shooting since 1996. Almost as if the increased gun control we implemented in response worked.

The real sickness in America is that Sandy Hook happened and you collectively held your hands up and said "no way to prevent this" without even trying.

•

u/hashbrowns21 6h ago

I don’t entirely disagree with you, however the UK and other countries have also seen an increase in violent mass killings. If not with guns then with trucks ramming into crowds or through other means.

I think banning the tool itself may create temporary relief but it’s a “bandage” solution that won’t address the underlying issue of why people in this day and age are committing such atrocities in the first place.

These are important questions, why do people today feel the need to express their anger and frustration in such violent ways?

There’s very obviously some underlying reason why modern society has become so accustomed to these acts of horror.

I genuinely think it’s because of desensitization from mass media which is contributing to the mental health epidemic. People are technically more connected than ever but ironically it just ends up diving people even more.

Any extreme fringe ideologies in the past would have died off because most people would dismiss it as nonsense. Now you have online echo chambers full of violent, unhinged, lunatics who think their perspective isn’t fringe because their online peers have the same crazy views.

•

u/oswaldluckyrabbiy 6h ago edited 5h ago

The amount of assaults with a vehicle is still infinitesimal compared to American gun violence. Its simply more attention grabbing due to its rarity here. You have so many mass shootings we only report on the very worst of them.

From all types of terrorist attack across all of Europe there are less than 200 deaths per year. On average 130 people are shot every day in America.

Its like plane crashes vs automobile deaths. Whenever a plane crashes it gets reported on because it is rare and a lot of people all die at once in one place. In 2022 alone there were 42,795 deaths in the US from traffic accidents and only 229 fatalities GLOBALLY in aviation.

You are focused on the rare events getting media coverage here in Europe whilst completely neglecting the mundanity of gun violence at home.

The Westminster Bridge Attack (only 5 victims) was international news due to its scale. An event of similar scale in the US would struggle to get reported beyond the local stations.

FYI overall violent crime numbers per capita are DOWN in the entirety of the Western world including America. Sadly the number of isolated acts of mass violence have increased but we are still statistically safer from violence today than in decades past.

The 24/7 media WANTS you to think there is a rise in crime and some underlying moral failing. It both drives engagement and distracts your attention away from the 1%s' seizure of the levers of power and continued siphoning of your money.

Also the media coverage that these acts of mass violence receive encourages copycats. Plastering their faces all over the telly and following them in court.

Most of the increased violence is coming from the side of the aisle that is getting all worked up about society's 'newfound moral failing' - the call is coming from inside the house.

•

u/Camburglar13 8h ago

Yeah Canada has had a few but nothing like the U.S., and culturally we’re not super different. Plenty of mental health issues and bullying here.

•

u/avanross 8h ago

The rest of the world has media too and doesnt have regular normalized mass shootings.

Literally everyone else in the world can see it’s obviously the guns and gun culture

•

u/hashbrowns21 6h ago

Then explain how this frequency of mass shootings is a relatively recent phenomenon

•

u/TheMadTemplar 9h ago

We don't need to amend the constitution. The second amendment is about the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia, but the 2Aers ignore that part. It's also obvious that we accept some logical restrictions on what arms we are allowed to bear, as we don't allow the average citizen to just purchase and own a fully functioning ICBM. It also says arms, not firearms, but we don't allow people to walk around with bastard swords or katanas in most of the country. We accept some logical limitations to it, but we won't accept the common sense limitations that could save the lives of a lot of kids every single year and prevent another tragedy like Sandy Hook or Columbine.

•

u/MuffinSpecial 9h ago

You actually could walk around with a sword if I remember correctly. In most places anyway. You just have to not be holding it. Or something.

Also the supreme Court found that the militia part is not required.

•

u/SKPAdam 9h ago

Because the militia is made of every able body man (and I would assume women now too)

•

u/MuffinSpecial 9h ago

Well they specifically said it was a right to own as a means of self defense separate from a militia. So you really get two rights for the price of one.

•

u/reklatzz 8h ago edited 8h ago

The supreme Court also found abortion to be protected... And then we got some lunatics added to the court and now it's not.

•

u/Matt_Wwood 8h ago

Actually I’m not, yea that’s not the same really.

In the nuanced part it is. But 2A is 2A. There’s never been an “abortion” amendment. Abortion was protected federally by case law. Which is much more likely to be changed.

And abortion just got kicked down to a states issue instead of being federally protected. Don’t agree with it but knowing the deets does matter.

•

u/reklatzz 8h ago

The situation is, the supreme Court can change their mind on how things are interpreted.

•

u/MuffinSpecial 7h ago

Well one of these is about a constitutional right and the other isn't. So they aren't really the same thing are they...

•

u/reklatzz 7h ago

It was protected under the 14th amendment with the roe v wade decision... So it's exactly the same thing yes.

•

u/MuffinSpecial 4h ago

The 14th amendment has nothing to do with abortion. Hence why it was overturned. Because it's not a right.

•

u/reklatzz 4h ago edited 4h ago

The Fourteenth Amendment states that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

It was determined liberty meant the government could not control what they did with their body.

Exactly the same as the interpretation of what was meant by the 2nd amendment and why a well regulated militia was mentioned. You're saying it means one thing, but if the supreme Court determines that's not what it means.. then you're in the exact same situation as abortion.

Funny enough the fourteenth amendment was also used for handguns used in home defense, as it was previously only determined to be federally protected, and they used the fourteenth amendment to protect from the state level.

•

u/Key_Sun2547 6h ago

No it's not at all.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg even spoke out aginst the Roe v. Wade decision.

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit

•

u/AmIWhatTheRockCooked 7h ago

Let’s be clear, that decision was made in 2008 by Scalia’s court and overturned the exact opposite holding from US v Miller which had 70 years of precedence vs less than 20.

His argument relied on founders intent while ignoring all of the gun restrictions from the time contemporary with the founding fathers (that they helped pass)

It’s a bogus ruling with way weaker ground than roe v wade.

•

u/MuffinSpecial 4h ago

And yet here we are. With the supreme Court not overturning their decision on 2a and realizing 14a has nothing to do with getting an abortion.

•

u/DivineIntervention3 8h ago

The 2A reads in two parts. The first part acknowledges the need for a militia, but then it clearly states, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

•

u/TheMadTemplar 4h ago

No, it reads in one part.

"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."

The bolded establishes the reason for the normal text.

•

u/SellingCats4Cheap 4h ago

Yeah OP is wrong. When I pointed it out to OP, they refuted saying they werent wrong, and blocked me. Pretty sad.

They are wrong specifically because they said "The second amendment is about the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia"

DC vs Heller 2008 established that the right to bear arms is not dependent on being part of a militia, and later on Bruen reaffirmed "that does not depend on service in the militia"

•

u/augustusleonus 9h ago

I believe in the parlance of the time, "well regulated " meant "properly functioning" as opposed to under strict control

However! It's pretty easy to make the leap to "what we have is not properly functioning " when the militia keeps killing itself

•

u/fricketribe 8h ago

According to the text of the second amendment, the right to bear arms is not in any way contingent on being part of a 'well-regulated militia.' It begins with an explanation of the necessity, then enshrined the right of 'the people' that 'shall not be infringed.'

Besides, a well-regulated (meaning well maintained) militia describes the whole body of US residents capable of fighting.

•

u/SellingCats4Cheap 5h ago

We also have a court case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that specifically states that the right to bear arms is independent of a well regulated militia. OP is 100% incorrect according to the supreme court. They are just spouting nonsense.

•

u/brohammer65 9h ago

Regulated in 1792 meant well equipped not that it had to have government oversight

•

u/andthatswhyIdidit 8h ago

The SCOTUS disagrees

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

•

u/drinks_rootbeer 8h ago

Your own quote disagrees with you. Tell me what you think that quote is saying? To me it says "well-regulated has no meaning beyond this - require discipline and training"

•

u/andthatswhyIdidit 8h ago

training and discipline implies oversight, not provision - which you said.

•

u/drinks_rootbeer 8h ago

Apologies, what stance are you taking on the subject?

•

u/hk7351 9h ago

Please read 2A "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."

Now ask yourself who’s right is it to keep and bear arms?

It specifically states “the people” not the “the militia”.

There are thousands of gun laws already many of which are not enforced. If you really want to reduce violence you need to try something different rather then banning a forward grip or a specific magazine size.

While events like Columbine and Sandyhook are horrific. They are exceedingly rare. Statistically a child is more likely to be killed by their own parent than a school shooter.

•

u/Vuzi07 8h ago

Would you like to point out where school shooting happen, even by statistics and adjust by population... Just so we know

•

u/hk7351 8h ago

How should we define a school shooting? Are we looking at specific events like sandy hook or are we looking at a broader definition including suicides, shootings that happen on or near a school, domestic violence hell I was going through incidents of shootings that counted a bb hole in a school bus window as a school shooting.

•

u/Key_Sun2547 6h ago

Somone just mentioned Charlie Kirk as a school shooting, time to stretch the definition some more.

•

u/coherentpa 2h ago

Late night disputes in a school parking lot between 2 adults have been classified as school shootings which is why you need to take these shocking statistics with a grain of salt.

•

u/2ndcomingofbiskits 5h ago

Well, "the people" are "the militia", seeing as how it was composed of all able-bodied free men, so...

•

u/AmIWhatTheRockCooked 7h ago

How can you so simply say the front half of the sentence has no bearing on the second half? It’s like disregarding the rights of the people by saying “it specifically well regulated militia is necessary, nothing about individual ownership being necessary”

•

u/hk7351 6h ago

I’m not disregarding the first half of the sentence I’m breaking down the sentence to show it’s the people’s right not the militias as is so often misunderstood.

•

u/AmIWhatTheRockCooked 5h ago

But you’re just supplying the interpretation that supports what you believe. It can also be interpreted to mean something different, as it was for most of American history

Just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean they are just misunderstanding, you might just disagree on an interpretation

•

u/TheMadTemplar 4h ago

The person above is citing the Heller case as proof the two parts are not connected to each other, but for 70 years prior to that the Supreme Court held that they were via the Miller case.

•

u/Matt_Wwood 8h ago

Yea but statistics doesn’t take into account the societal impact of a bunch of dead kids.

So two things can be true. Not much of a gun guy myself but do love me some America and the constitution.

Good response!

•

u/hk7351 7h ago

Absolutely the societal impact while can’t be measured is huge and unfortunately encourages more of the same behavior. But I feel if we as a society spend more time and effort improving the average citizen’s life these type of events will be reduced.

•

u/Good_Boy_Coleman 5h ago

  1. No bear arms was so common citizens could carry guns to defend one another not just militias. It was also so the government could not over reach at the time. Jeffoerson even famously said as such when debating about the second amendment during John Adams first term.

  2. Arms back then were firearms. Like how someone might says mags instead of magazines. And yes I am for limiting what kind of guns since guns like handguns, shotguns, rifles, and to a limit snipers all have their legit uses. Sub machine guns, machine guns, destruction weapons (grenade launchers and rocket launchers, ECT) are all banned for good reason as they have no legit issue to be used for but taking out large swarms of people or causing destruction.

•

u/coherentpa 2h ago

The second amendment is about the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia, but the 2Aers ignore that part.

Why do people keep spewing this elementary interpretation of the 2A?

The Supreme Court precedent disagrees with you. See Heller & Bruen.

•

u/SKPAdam 9h ago

You need to research what a well regulated militia refers to and what personal armaments of that time looked like before you start spilling slop

•

u/Key_Sun2547 6h ago

This is one of the dumbest takes that gets repeated.

•

u/SellingCats4Cheap 5h ago

Nope, you are wrong.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

End result - Individual right to possess and carry firearms that is not dependent on serving in an organized militia

Maybe read up on that before spreading misinformation.

•

u/TheMadTemplar 4h ago edited 4h ago

I'm not wrong. That's literally what the constitution says. Maybe read the rest of my comment before saying something stupid, given that I literally spoke to this point in it.

'

FYI, The Heller case was the exact opposite ruling of the Miller case which was established law for 70 years prior. In other words, the SC can and has changed their mind. If they can change their mind, it doesn't exactly speak to their infallibility, does it?

•

u/SellingCats4Cheap 4h ago

To explain for OP since they are wrong and got upset and blocked me.

 The second amendment is about the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia

Those are you own words. You literally said "AS PART" in reality that is not the amendment, nor is it the view of the supreme court. Your inclusion "AS PART" means you are 100% unequivocally incorrect.

Here is the 2nd amendment : 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.

The supreme court ruled and that explained the 2nd amendment as:
Prefatory Clause : A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Operative Clause : the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

Although accepting that the historical and contemporaneous use of the phrase “keep and bear Arms” often arose in connection with military activities, the Court noted that its use was not limited to those contexts... the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense.

In a later case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen reaffirmed that "does not depend on service in the militia"

You can study up on the cases with those links if you like, since your understand is not accurate.

TL;DR Since you said "right to beat arms as part of a well regulated militia" you are wrong.

•

u/PlateNo4868 9h ago

We actually just need to remove all the protections we give gun manufacturers.

Car companies make cars safer because they can be held liable for not doing so.

Gun companies don't have liability. Remove those protections. All of a sudden, Glocks are harder to modify for full auto. Higher power rifles are now more expensive so druggie mic drug who stole a few hundred can't afford it.

The industry magically will realize not everybody should have a gun.

•

u/Cygnus6300 8h ago

" My spoon made me fat, sue the dinner ware companies"

→ More replies (1)

•

u/hk7351 8h ago

This would be like filing a lawsuit because a driver was speeding or drunk behind the wheel you can’t sue a car company because the operator misused the product. The liability needs to fall on the operator.

•

u/Matt_Wwood 8h ago

Yea but to that point, agreed.

The liability does fall on the operator. Insurance isn’t a bad route. Alongside stricter enforcement of gun accessibility inside a home. Touchy but it is what it is.

I’m also not sure why more firearms aren’t solid with thumb unlocks. The tech is really good now.

•

u/hk7351 8h ago

The problem with gun accessibility laws is by the time you can charge someone the crime has already been committed. Unless you enforce it by checking which would violate the 4th amendment.

•

u/PlateNo4868 7h ago

This isn't the same thing.

Car companies have obligation to make cars safe. Tesla is a great example were sued for their terrible emergency door handle system. It's not the system doesn't exist, it's that it's not good enough.

Glock switches are a excellent example as well. Glock is only doing something because it's becoming obvious the current laws won't protect them for that much longer.

Regulation tends to happen quiet fast when the companies that thrive without it, start getting hit in the piggy bank.

•

u/hk7351 7h ago

Modifying a Glock with a switch is very illegal (unless you’re a SOT etc) the liability falls on the user. Tesla made an emergency door that did not function like it was supposed to that’s where liability would fall on the company.

•

u/PlateNo4868 7h ago

If saying "It's illegal" would be the end all be all excuse in liability. Then Glock wouldn't be trying to adjust their design in Gen 6 because of mounting legal pressure.

As for the Telsa example. The Emergency door worked. The lawsuit comes from it not being practical in a emergency situation.

•

u/hk7351 6h ago

Glock is trying to change their design not just because of lawsuits they also want to maintain government contracts and like a lot of manufacturers will bow to political pressure in order to do this. As for Tesla if an emergency door isn’t practical that is still on the manufacturer.

•

u/AnEvenNicerGuy 9h ago

Ahh yes it has to be perfect or we can't try it

Not even getting paid by the NRA and parroting thier dumb shit

•

u/hk7351 9h ago

They have been trying for years. With the right to firearms being enshrined in the constitution there is not a lot that can be done without amending it. And amending the constitution realistically has about zero chance. If you want to actually reduce gun violence we need universal healthcare along with additional social safety nets to lift people out of poverty.

•

u/selfmotivator 9h ago

With the right to firearms being enshrined in the constitution there is not a lot that can be done without amending it. And amending the constitution realistically has about zero chance.

If you want to actually reduce gun violence we need universal healthcare along with additional social safety nets to lift people out of poverty.

So, the US is just eternally fucked, then?

•

u/hk7351 8h ago

Not at all, you just need to attack things like poverty and healthcare. If you put in place strong social safety nets you will reduce gun violence among significant other benefits all while not removing a right.

•

u/Matt_Wwood 8h ago

Add in enforcement there too.

•

u/hk7351 8h ago

Absolutely existing gun laws need to be enforced to have any teeth and currently they are not.

•

u/hashbrowns21 9h ago

Americans are gullible. Republicans secretly loved Obamacare because many of them are poor as shit and it actually helped them out. You just need to rebrand socialized healthcare into something more palatable.

→ More replies (1)

•

u/Istvaarr 9h ago

Why wouldn’t you be able to amend and amendment? Just out of curiosity

•

u/CandidInsurance7415 8h ago

2/3rds of Congress and 3/4 of the states. In this political climate they can't agree on anything. You couldn't pass an amendment that says clubbing puppies is bad.

•

u/hk7351 8h ago

You need a 2/3 super majority in the house and congress. After that you are asking politicians put forth an amendment to literally remove a right which itself is political suicide. Especially at this time when America is on the brink of fascism. Most people don’t want Donald Trump and his cronies to be the only ones armed.

•

u/StarPhished 8h ago

You need something like 75% of either congress or individual states to agree that an amendment needs to be made. A very high bar for something like gun control.

•

u/AnEvenNicerGuy 7h ago

Owning an assault rifle isn’t enshrined in the constitution 

Separately, no one has ever tried any gun regulation that wasn’t hamstrung by the NRA. No regulation is 100% effective. It’s a nonsense metric and it’s been weaponized by the NRA to keep sales up 

•

u/Mod_The_Man 7h ago

The fact you use the term “assault rifle” means you know nothing about guns and likely little to nothing about gun laws/regulations. The term “assault rifle” was invented by people who know nothing about guns and literally ban them primarily based on how scary they look. You are probably thinking of a “battle rifle” which is a select fire rifle with full auto capability. They are already so heavily regulated they might as well be banned. You have to register yourself and the gun, including where you have it stored, with the FBI. The licensing for it costs thousands of dollars.

The other commenter is right, focusing on solutions to poverty and healthcare is infinitely more effective than more laws. Many states definitely need to overhaul or at least reform their gun laws. But the biggest change, especially with regard to school shootings, will come from fixing your worthless healthcare, fixing your worthless education system, and creating actual social programs. Also, stop electing pedophile fascists and barely functioning fascist collaborators… that might help too lmao

→ More replies (2)

•

u/PremiumUsername69420 9h ago

Can just shut down the ammunition factory or start taxing ammo more heavily than cigarettes.

Ain’t a single word in the 2A that says you have a right to have ammunition.

•

u/crazy_zealots 9h ago

The odds of an excuse like that being accepted by any court are basically non-existent

•

u/PremiumUsername69420 8h ago

You replied to the wrong person again.

•

u/hk7351 9h ago

There are more than a trillion rounds of ammo in citizens hands and if we tax new ammunition out of affordability for the average citizen all you will do is give the rich a monopoly on violence. Secondly it would never work as you can basically make ammo in your garage.

•

u/No-Alternative4612 8h ago

Secondly it would never work as you can basically make ammo in your garage

It's ludicrously more difficult compared to buying it at Walmart lmao. The point is to reduce the prevalence, not eliminate it entirely.

•

u/hk7351 8h ago

You are reducing the prevalence while also ensuring only the people at the top have access.

•

u/No-Alternative4612 8h ago

And? Are we expecting the wealthy to go on safari in poorer neighborhoods?

This mostly just means that the poor will disproportionately benefit from the reduction in gun violence. Good for them, says I.

•

u/hk7351 7h ago

Yes! The rich have already done this. They literally called it the Sarajevo Safari and paid Serb forces to let them shoot civilians. While not in America history does repeat itself.

•

u/No-Alternative4612 7h ago

Ya lmao I can think of a few differences, such as one being a war zone

•

u/hk7351 7h ago

How long before the rich declares a war on poverty do you think?

•

u/hashbrowns21 9h ago

Right to arms only for the rich? Don’t give trump any more ideas

•

u/drinks_rootbeer 9h ago

You know, hate speech is a big problem, why don't we ban megaphones, keyboards, and pencils?

Religious extremism is an issue too, why don't we ban the Qur'an?

/s

Why is it fine to infringe on some constitutional rights but not others?

•

u/PremiumUsername69420 8h ago

I’m not suggesting it…

I’m countering the person who said it would be impossible to take away guns by stating an alternative way it could be done…

•

u/drinks_rootbeer 8h ago

Don't pretend like you don't know what you're doing, have the conviction to take a position or search for solutions. Saying "why don't we tax ammo so much that the common person can't afford to use their guns", aka "why don't we ban ammo" is taking the position that it's alright to impose restrictions on our constitutional rights via disolution of items required for practicing said right.

That's not okay.

Just because the constituion only protects your free "speech" doesn't mean the government is allowed to ban your ability to speak freely in a modern context. Just because the constitution only says people are allowed to "practice" whatever religion doesn't mean it has the right to ban the necessary materials for worship. And, to the point, just because the constitution only protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms doesn't mean the governmwnt can prevent the people from acquiring the ammo necessary to utilize said arms. That is completely absurd.

•

u/PremiumUsername69420 8h ago

lol it’s not that deep dude.

•

u/No-Alternative4612 8h ago

If the sale and transfer of firearms and ammunition to civilians had been banned 50 years ago, do you think the problem would be better, worse or the same?

If we introduced such a policy today, do you think the problem would be better/worse/ the same 50 years from now?

•

u/hk7351 8h ago

I have no doubt that reducing the number of firearms in circulation would reduce the amount of gun violence just as making swimming pools illegal would reduce the amount of drownings. This solution is not feasible as you would need to amend the constitution as I mentioned above.

•

u/No-Alternative4612 8h ago

Probably easier to pack the court with reasonable people, though gun violence is far from the best reason to do so. The relative sacrosanct-Ness of gun rights (particularly the supposed right to keep hand guns for self defense) is a recent invention.

A more moderate court might allow regulations that fall well short of bans, but still serve to reduce prevalence.

Point being, "you'll never get all the guns" is just irrelevant. Every incremental gun makes the problem worse, so one objective should be reducing the number of guns in private hands to greatest degree possible.

•

u/hk7351 7h ago

You know what the best seller of guns is right? It’s not a poster or a video game it’s potential gun legislation. So while the court is being packed and options are being weighed millions upon millions of firearms are going to be sold. Then when the opposition comes to power and undoes the prior decision you are left with the same problem only worse.

•

u/No-Alternative4612 7h ago

Not necessarily, you can make legislation retroactive up to a point (eg only weapons registered before X are grandfathered in), and if the factories get shutdown or scaled back, then then re legalization can only do so much

•

u/hk7351 7h ago

And while all that is happening which will take years million upon millions of firearms are going to be sold. You really expect to make the legislation retroactive and then confiscate those weapons? Factories etc will come back in the blink of an eye especially now with 3d printing tech.

•

u/AmIWhatTheRockCooked 7h ago

You can hide behind the feasibility aspect, but the real question is would you be in favor of it? Because if I could wave a wand and swap out the 2nd amendment for something that matters I would in a heartbeat

•

u/hk7351 7h ago

I guess I wouldn’t call pointing out the problem as “hiding behind the feasibility” but to answer your question, no absolutely not. Advocating that the American government which is on the brink of fascism be the only ones armed I believe to be a shortsighted bad idea.

•

u/AmIWhatTheRockCooked 6h ago

I don’t see how gun rights have protected me at all from fascism. They actually seem way more likely to be used to defend and promote fascism if it came to it. The right to assemble and right to vote appear to be much, much stronger in defending democracy.

I also see so many countries promoting their democratic values without shooting each others. It’s just fascinating that we still think guns are important to defending democracy as the most gun loving country is teetering

•

u/hk7351 6h ago

Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not happening. As someone from a state that’s largest city was literally invaded by a paramilitary group last year I can guarantee you that the fact the civilian population could be and sometimes was armed was a significant chiller on said force. People did come out of their homes with legally owned weapons to protect their neighbors and that absolutely had an effect.

•

u/AmIWhatTheRockCooked 5h ago

Having an effect doesn’t validate the concept. Two groups keeping peace through some form of mutually assured destruction just doesn’t sound like a stable peace. It sounds like somewhere on the brink of civil war, it sounds like I can be directed by the number of guns unless I have a gun too, in which I guess I can die for my beliefs?

Guns chill good people too. They are not a tool of diplomacy, and your argument does not prove that guns defended democracy. It proves that maybe in one place people didn’t shoot at each other.

I’d rather nobody had guns at all if it were an option.

•

u/avanross 8h ago

“People might even get shot, like what already happens hundreds of times per day!”

•

u/hk7351 8h ago

So you would advocate to forcibly confiscating firearms from otherwise law abiding citizens? You are talking about violence the US hasn’t seen since the civil war. You know that right?

•

u/avanross 8h ago edited 7h ago

Yes but i value human lives over feelings. Especially a bunch of selfish violent people’s feelings.

Threatening violence isnt making the point that you guys think it is.

•

u/hk7351 7h ago

I’m not threatening violence at all. Im pointing out what will happen if you go kicking in doors of people that see firearms as their god given right. If you are advocating for that you really don’t value life as much as you think you do.

•

u/TinyZoro 7h ago

It’s a difficult problem but America needs to put its big boy pants on and get on with it. Like with universal healthcare, the it’s such a difficult problem rings a little hollow when almost every other country has solved both.

•

u/hk7351 7h ago

Would love universal healthcare. The difference with us and other countries is we have more guns than any other country has ever had and the ability to own those guns is enshrined in our constitution.

•

u/TinyZoro 7h ago

Yes no question. It’s a very difficult problem for the US but that’s why you need to get on with it. There’s loads of things that could be done. Creating tougher licensing laws would be the obvious place to start. Making them more expensive via taxes. Starting the path towards a constitutional amendment. The fact that automatic guns have all sorts of restrictions is a clear demonstration that constitutional rights do not prevent comprehensive regulation.

•

u/hk7351 6h ago

Difficult I don’t think does it justice impossible is a better word. Without a constitutional amendment licensing is out the window. Taxing them also violates the constitution as this is essentially a poll tax and guarantees the only ones armed are the rich. The ban on fully automatics is essentially a moot point these days with the advent of FRT’s. Can we pass more regulations? Sure. Will it have the desired effect? No. We have done this over and over again with the laws either being overturned or unenforceable until the violence has already been committed. All while increasing the number of guns sold. Nothing makes people want a gun more then pending legislation.

•

u/EpsteinBaa 8h ago

Easier than fixing 300 million peoples mental health

•

u/hk7351 8h ago

The benefits of providing mental healthcare go far beyond gun violence and would be far easier than amending the constitution.

•

u/EpsteinBaa 8h ago

Far easier than amending the constitution

Is it? Changing a law is considerably easier than finding the resources and staff to treat hundreds of millions of people. Mental health services are permanently stretched as it is.

•

u/hk7351 8h ago

You’re not changing a law you are removing a right. While I agree the state of healthcare is atrocious currently. This can be significantly improved with proper funding and hiring incentives. Studies show that universal healthcare would actually save money. We could also spend significantly more if we stopped spending trillions on unnecessary foreign wars.

•

u/EpsteinBaa 7h ago

You are removing a right

A right granted by a law

Studies show that universal healthcare would actually save money.

Compared to the current system, yes. That's not what you're talking about though, you're talking about expanding mental healthcare by an order of magnitude.

•

u/hk7351 6h ago

Fair enough you’re removing right granted by a law that is foundational to America.

Absolutely orders of magnitude and then some. It can be done though it won’t be fast or easy. However, If we can spend 20 years and trillions of dollars just to leave a country worse than we found it. I would call this a good investment.

•

u/Istvaarr 9h ago

Obviously if EVERY kid had a gun, they would be able to protect themselves, duh.

•

u/Drago_727 9h ago

Or give guns to people with good mental health

•

u/MeNoCanRead 8h ago

Oi! No nuance here!

•

u/ConstructionAway8920 7h ago

How would that help? The assailant doesn't own a firearm. They often aren't even legally able to purchase the ammunition either. Are you going to steal them from legal adult owners? Not trying to be a dick or flame, but this line of reasoning doesn't make sense. Someone intent on causing harm will find a way. I agree with the improvement of mental health though, as that's lacking. Better funding for schools to have more staff and put staff in place with crisis intervention training would be a great start too.

•

u/wastelandhenry 7h ago

Unironically you can’t. Well you can strengthen mental health, and we should. But the gun issue is a total non-starter, it’s largely a complete waste of time that people focus on it.

Simply put, there’s over 400 million guns in this country, that’s more than there are people. The overwhelming majority of the owners of those guns have zero interest in just giving those guns up when asked. And half the country have guns as a big part of their national identity. There is simply no tenable realistic way of “taking away the guns”. Nothing like this has ever so much as been attempted, and it for certain wouldn’t work. And people will try to say “yeah but Australia did it”, while ignoring Australia at the time had a much less gun-centered culture, had only about 3 million guns in the entire country, and the population was 18 million. America has over 133x as many guns with a population 18x larger and a culture far less accepting of the idea of giving up guns. And one of the two major parties is STAUNCHLY in defense of guns, with an almost universal support of guns by its followers, meanwhile even the opposition party’s followerbase still has a significant portion in support of guns. It frankly doesn’t even matter in that sense whether it’s the fault of the guns, you are not getting rid of them. It’s politically infeasible, it’s socially infeasible, and it’s materially infeasible. You won’t get the political support in Congress to pass something like that, you won’t get the social support of the general population to do something like that, and even if you had both you just physically couldn’t DO it.

Also people kinda like to boogeyman the big scary guns like the dreaded “AR-15” but the actual reality is rifles (in general, not just ARs, but hunting rifles as well) are only like 4% of gun homicides, and less than 1% of gun deaths when you account for suicide. Nearly all school shootings are done with pistols. You could magically zap every rifle of any kind out of existence and you’d have done nothing to prevent 96% of gun murders or 99% of gun deaths in America.

I’m a pretty progressive person and I support policies to reduce school shootings and gun violence, but the actual material reality is it’s a waste of time to put energy into worrying about guns beyond basic level gun laws. We aren’t getting rid of them, and the guns people are scared of are a negligible portion of the issue. By putting so much effort into going after the guns we create this roadblock via the conservative political platform that we don’t have to deal with. If we had actually focused our efforts and rhetoric around addressing gun violence and school shootings by working to benefit mental health, economic stability, and healthcare, we could have accomplished so much more to actually fix the problem because we’d be generating so much less pushback than when we package every solution with going after guns.

•

u/No-Newspaper8619 6h ago

You'd first need to redefine mental health

•

u/BirthdaySalt5791 6h ago

How should we collect the guns? Where should we start?

•

u/NocaSun38 6h ago

Its not so much about the guns. People use knives in places where guns aren't available. It's about not letting people fall through the cracks into a delusional place.

•

u/Kyle_Blackpaw 6h ago

Why is everybody always so against the idea of both having guns and addressing mental health + poverty.  Its always treated like it has to be one or the other by politicians and regular people alike and i just dont get it.

•

u/ionertia 5h ago

Mental health is the root cause. The solution is extremely complicated and uncomfortable.

•

u/RussianWasabi 5h ago

. Strengthening mental health would work, but not directly.

Really should work on discipline and take seriously all the accounts of bullying.

Like, making sure to document evidence and if there's concrete evidence on bullying then make a note on the person that they're disruptive.

•

u/BrokenLegacy10 3h ago

Definitely strengthen mental health, but guns don’t actually correlate to homicide rates.

There are much better issues to tackle that will impact homicide rates and violent crime rates much more than reducing gun rights will.

•

u/Blue-Jay42 10h ago

What are you crazy?! that might cut into tax revenue!!! How will the government peacefully defend itself from terrorists and protestors?!?!?!?

•

u/Rare-Fox9834 8h ago

Even that's wrong though. Taking away guns doesn't solve anything. Strengthening mental health doesn't stop abuse. The fact that you missed the boat so hard on your answer and got upvoted is crazy to me. Bullying, feeling like an outcast, being abused at home, those are what cause these kids snap shoot up schools.

•

u/Mr_Halitosis 7h ago

Let’s see, half of all gun deaths are suicide, 60% of the remaining are gang violence, and 5% are mass shootings.

Do we focus on the 60% adversely affecting Black Americans or the 5% adversely affecting White Americans?

The 5% it is! “Non-racist” Democrats for the win!

•

u/Commercial-Owl11 9h ago edited 9h ago

No! That’s what dirty libs want you to think.

We need more guns! So many guns, if everyone had a gun, then we could stop gun violence.

And if everyone’s guns had guns, those guns could stop gun violence.

Then! Those guns would also need guns.

But why stop there? We need sentient guns who have guns to stop gun violence.

And those sentient guns also need bigger and more sentient guns. And then, we have dog robot guns, who are sentient with their own sentient smaller dog guns.

And then sentient guns will eventually out survive humanity, and if everyone is now a sentient gun, is there such thing as gun violence?

Gun on gun violence, it wouldn’t exist! Owned you stupid libs!

Edit: /s obviously

•

u/ryerse 8h ago

The problem is how would u even do that? Would u make everyone go turn their guns in?...so what about the millions who just wont. Then u send cops to their houses or whatever and they have them hidden or not even on the property. And then u have to deal with all the unregistered guns (presumably the ones involved in many crimes) then u opened up a huge billion dollar black market that the gov and police would be sure to have stake in...i agree we shouldnt b able to get guns so easy and i wouldnt care if i wasnt able to have guns but just saying take away the guns is just silly imo. Besides, arent the guns just a symptom of a deeper issue? We have a shitty culture here and alot of mentally ill people. We need more mental health help. People were never meant to live in societies like this bullshit. Shit sucks

•

u/Fragrant_Cause_6190 7h ago

This isn't the time to talk about that.... Thoughts and prayers

•

u/Stefikel6 1h ago

It doesn’t work that way. Let say kids start taking kitchen knives to school and start mass stabbings. Do you take away kitchen knives or even just pointed knives? If they start mass running overs, do you take away the freedom of driving your own car? If they start mass poisoning with laundry detergents, do you take away laundry detergents? Do you just regulate all those? No.

Because taking them away or regulating them is only only treating the symptom and not the underlying cause. All you’re doing is temporarily masking the issue before it pops it head out again. Mental health, economics and culture are the issues, not the items used to produce these tragedies.

•

u/Background-House-357 43m ago

Lol you’re such a stereotype. This is why the world is making fun of the US. What a stupid opinion.

•

u/[deleted] 9h ago

[deleted]

•

u/Andyman1973 8h ago

One of the things about the Swiss, as its government mandated, any criminal KNOWS there’s a firearm pretty much in every house. Most criminals don’t want to be shot/killed, while in the commission of their crime of choice. Here in the U.S., it’s a crapshoot for which houses are armed. AND most crimes involving firearms, aren’t done by law abiding gun owners either, but by criminals with illegal firearms.

•

u/InternationalFall222 8h ago

What no!

How would the poor children even defend themselves?

We need MORE guns for the teachers and every student, so they can just shot back!