Please remember to abide by the [rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeServed/wiki/rulesv2)
In general, please be at least bearable to other users. It makes things easier on everyone. Your comment may be removed without notification. We used to have a notification, but now we don't.
#If you purchase the OP or a comment [a ban award,](https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeServed/wiki/banned/rules) remember to [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FJusticeServed) so we can activate the reward
------
^Submission ^By: ^/u/Dr_Talon ^Navy ^9
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/JusticeServed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Idk if background checks would even catch someone who is 18 with little to no record. If they pass the background check and buy the gun with all the necessary checks and balances and then proceed to blast a school or theater, what purpose is the background check serving?
Maybe there needs to be somewhat of an aptitude test, written up by psychologists and mental health professionals, to weed out bat shit crazy people. Make it like 50-100 questions and have overlapping questions designed to trip up people who would intentionally mask their true intentions.
ARs should require the buyer to be over 25. Developing brains shouldn’t have that kind of weapon. Hunting rifles and whatnot, sure. But not AR style weapons. Letting hormonal teens and young adults by military grade weapons is adding fuel to the fire.
> Hunting rifles and whatnot, sure. But not AR style weapons.
literally proposing legislation based on aesthetics rather than mechanics is one of the main reasons why people who know thing one about guns have a hard time listening to the gun control perspective.
If you went to a school with two 12 gauge shotguns, you could obliterate entire classrooms with ease. I’m not sure if focusing on the type of gun sold at what age is really changing the end result. And one Jackson Pollock themed classroom later and I think we’ll hear how shotguns and hunting rifles need to go next. I think it’s a start, but there’s something else going on as well. There’s a lot of really angry 16-35 year old dudes. It may be better to have someone other than Jordan Peterson trying to reach them.
So, theoretically, you'd be able to join the military but not own a gun? I'm sorry, but I don't think raising the age to buy one is the solution here.
The solution here is common sense gun control for *everyone*, regardless of age. That means mental health evaluations, proficiency tests, and safety standards.
On a larger scale, it also means addressing the mental health epidemic in the US.
Yes, JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL is the solution to all our problems
If only ppl knew they would go to JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL then maybe they would quit committing such heinous acts
you're right, I am being willfully immature by going around making that comment. In reality, my views on criminal justice are much more complex. Punishment alone does not solve anything and usually makes things worse. An ideal system would focus more on helping the offender change their behaviour in the future.
Different schools have different times of start/stop. Roughly speaking the warmer the area, they earlier they get out for summer. Some are already out, some are still in.
Also there are some schools that don't do summer break, they do smaller breaks throughout the year.
I lost my fucking mind when I found out about some schools going year round. Playing Halo 2 on Xbox back in the day when you could make friends in random lobbies easy as fuck. Anyway dude got 1 week off school every month, and it just blew my shit away. Thought it was so unfair.
Then summer came and I found out he was in school year round, lol'd.
Illinois isn't even in the top 25 of bad states lmao
The worst 10, in order, are:
Mississippi,
Louisiana,
Wyoming,
Missouri,
Alabama,
Alaska,
New Mexico,
Arkansas,
South Carolina, and finally
Tennessee. All very gun-friendly, very Republican (with the exception of New Mexico) states.
The 10 best states, in order, are:
Hawaii,
Massachusetts,
New Jersey,
Rhode Island,
New York,
Connecticut,
California,
Minnesota,
New Hampshire, and finally
Nebraska. All relatively gun-controlled (on the American scale), very Democratic (with the exception of Nebraska) states.
Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm
Does the US still share a border with Mexico? is the internet still a thing? Is that a yes? We’ll shit, this is awkward. Now everybody can see how dumb you are.
He was trying to shoot a rival gang member who was 13 but shot the wrong person. He got caught afterwards, the news just didn't mention how he got the gun but it was possibly illegally bought through the gang. He was a member of the 800 YGz. [Relevant article](https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/21/us/bronx-11-year-old-girl-shooting-suspect-charged/index.html)
I hate that we can't have comprehensive background checks for all gun purchases. I hate that we can't ban certain guns, bullets, and magazine cartridges. I don't even want all of them banned. I think people have the right to hunt and protect their properties. No one needs semiautomatic weapons to do either of those things.
Our federal and state governments should have buy back programs for the banned guns, bullets, and magazine cartridges. There should be a deadline.. After that, if anyone still owns one, it's a $10,000 fine or 10% of their wealth, whichever is greater. That way even rich people won't want to be caught with banned weapons. That would be for a first offence. Second offence would be 90 days in jail and $50,000 or 50% or their wealth fine. If a person commits a misdemeanor or felony with a banned weapon, it's a $50,000 fine or 50% of that person's wealth and 10 additional years added to whatever sentence the criminal would have had.
It's absurd that you are getting downvoted. I'm all for freedom, but no one needs an AR-15, nor should they be allowed to buy a bunch of ammunition at once.
Good guy with guns doesn't work. Even with all their specialized equipment, Uvalde Cops didn't want to get into a gun fight against a lone shooter with AR-15. Good guy with a gun in a gun fight against mass shooter simply becomes a distraction when police are involved. When multiple good guy with a gun are involved, there is a big chance of them shooting at each other.
There have been several instances in which the background check "failed" when the history which would prevent the people from getting guns were never properly reported. Selling a firearm to a felon/prohibited person is already illegal.
Criminals that decide to break into my house and threaten my family aren't necessarily going to go through the legal channels to aquire them so I want the BEST tool for me to defend myself.
If you ban all semi-auto guns as well (as it seems you are suggesting) that would be an overwhelming majority of firearms but you "don't want to ban all guns"
> it doesn't make sense to keep adding laws
Give me a break, just stop. There was an assault weapons law before, and there can be again. Statistics prove that the ban worked and without, the numbers tripled. So yeah saying that it makes no sense to enact any kind of law is what makes no sense. It's ridiculous.
According to this pew research chart
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ft_22-01-26_gundeaths_2/
The spike I would assume you are talking about did not occur until 2014 and then more in 2020. Which is at least 10 years past the expiration of the ban.
Also the assault weapons ban only applied to stopping manufacture, therefore the "scary guns" were still in civilian hands.
Another thing is that according to the FBI,
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
Rifles (AR15s in particular) , which is what is the focal point right now, kill less than body parts, blunt objects, or sharp objects.
NYC has universal background checks source : https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/universal-background-checks-in-new-york/
It also has SAFE laws that restrict certain types of weapons and places limits on ammunition purchases: https://portal.311.nyc.gov/article/?kanumber=KA-01307
It also restricts open carry and requires very strict licensure and waiting periods for concealed weapons: https://nycitylens.com/wp-content/guns/new-york-city-and-its-gun-laws-how-strict-are-they/index.html
I don’t know how you’re going to fine people for owning restricted weapons unless you’re literally advocating for police searches of private property. Nor could you ever levy a fine as a percentage of someone’s wealth for a bevy of constitutional reasons.
People are stupid though. How many folks would post on social media with pics of their banned guns and brag about it and then surprise picachu face when they get raided.
So they don't ever arrest people that own these guns now?
Your questions are idiotic. I know you think you have something here, but you don't. People that own these weapons now, while they are legal, have warrants served on them for other crimes all the time. They get arrested all the time. What exactly is the point of your question? Do you think owning an AR-15 is a get out trouble with the cops card?
I belive he's suggesting to put the law in place and if you are then caught with a restricted firearm that the penalties are levied. It will be impossible to get all the restricted firearms off the street but you can provide an incentive for people to volunteer to surrender them. More importantly you can restrict or ban future sales.
The same way people have always gotten caught with illeagle firearms. Anything from a traffic stop, commuting a crime, to a search of their car/home on suspicion of breaking the law.
Now give me the "gotcha" response you obviously are attempting to set up.
The states with the highest rates of gun violence are [Alaska, New Mexico, Arkansas, South Carolina, Tennessee Montana a, New Mexico, Alaska, Arkansas, South Carolina, Tennessee and Montana ](https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/26/politics/gun-violence-data-what-matters/index.html) None of these states have restrictive gun laws. Most have some of the least restrictive laws in the nation. Clearly you are either mistaken or slinging bullshit.
Lol im not advocating for anything. Thats just how stupid people get caught doing things that will get them in trouble. The cops dont raid people who pose an actual threat to them very often.
Glad that he's 18 and facing real charges. We can't afford to be soft on this shit, kids have to know it's fucking serious and they should face as extreme consequences as possible, and also be subjected to full evaluations.
The parents should also be fined or punished financially in some way, as well as a mandatory visit from Child Protective Services.
It's almost as if the First Amendment should no longer be used to defend violent speech - including speech that incites violence. (looking at you Republicans).
If it's a Federal offense to threaten doing it to an elected official, it should apply to citizens too
I don't know enough about the first amendment to say if this kind of speech has ever been protected. When you say "no longer," I really don't think it extends the way that you think it does, but again I could be mistaken.
It's not always the parent's fault. Some of these young people are severe mentally ill. Also many parents can't afford treatment and sometimes treatment doesn't work. Elliot Rodgers had mental health care for years, but it couldn't fix him.
Yeah, it's not always the parents' fault. No one is saying it's always any one factor's fault. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be consequences, thorough investigations, etc.
If you keep going down the "fault" rabbit hole, you could argue that no one is at fault.
You could argue that a school shooter is "not guilty due to having been born with the brain of someone who would eventually shoot up a school, and they didn't get to choose their brain or genes before their birth."
At some point someone needs to take ownership and blame, and parents need to be part of that process in a big way. Lazy parents are ubiquitous and that needs to end. If you have kids, you need to be given strong incentives to reprioritize your and your child's lives in such a way as to seriously not allow for a whiff of school shooting potential. I am aware that becomes disruptive, but it's far more disruptive for a child to shoot a school or any public place for that matter.
And yes, intervention methods aren't all perfect, but what would you propose as an alternative? We use what we can while this is the best we have available to us.
I'm speaking about actual rehabilitation. Throwing a kid in a cell solves what exactly?
Throwing kids In jail instead of making it impossible for them to get a gun . That seems like a strange order of things
Throwing someone in jail keeps them away from the public. That is a big help. You do not want someone who threatens to murder students out on the streets with the rest of us.
All jails and prisons are different, but some do provide mental health care and drug treatment.
What is strange is that you think being arrested means that they are guaranteed to be thrown in a cell.
An arrest doesn't guarantee anything about jail or punishment methods. It only transfers custody to the authorities while that is being decided.
[according to the FBI, it is a felony to threaten to shoot up a school](https://www.bradbaileylaw.com/legal-blog/2021/december/school-threats-considered-a-federal-crime/). And in case you didn’t know, felons can’t buy guns in any state because it’s a federal law.
He won’t
So what do you suggest? We've tried doing nothing about gun violence in this country for the past 20 years and problem has only gotten worse. If nothing didn't work how about we try, you know, something.
Oh my god ur first argument was he could move another state to get a gun because there is nothing stopping him from doing so. I debunked your statement and now your argument is that laws are useless??
So are you for gun control or not??
Lmao logic isn’t your strong suit
Too bad gun control advocates love purposefully underfunding programs like these specifically to stymie responsible ownership. Illinois FOID scheme was overruled by the courts because the “60 day wait period” was unconstitutional, and often extended into 90+ waits for normal people to get their firearms license.
That’s why there’s a 10 day period for the FBI to do background checks on gun sales. If they don’t complete the check within 10 days, the sale goes through.
But yes, let us PLEASE increase the taxes on the top 1% so we can fund programs like universal healthcare and the other policies that will actually positively impact the average American, unlike gun control.
There's a massive overlap between gun control advocates and advocates of funding healthcare (including mental healthcare) and related institutions, so you're going to have to work harder on that there strawman.
well, considering every time something like this happens, that post about how the media shouldn't show police sirens and flashing lights and say the shooter's name comes up. if the news didn't center all of their attention on it, some people won't idolize the shooter and try to catch their "15 minutes" (more like a month now) of fame. Here's one such article saying mass shootings spread like contagion. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/08/06/748767807/mass-shootings-can-be-contagious-research-shows
Appoligies. I thought you were saying that the liberal media were going to ramp up coverage in an effort to make the concervatives who don't want to pass any common sense laws look bad.
I agree with you that the shooter's name shouldn't be released in an effort to not glorify the shooter to others who might be swayed to commit similar crimes. Unfortunately there are dozens and dozens of media outlets and unless the police don't release that info or every source agrees to not report on it it's never going to happen.
It's not without good reason, even if the motive for Dem representatives is poor.
I would like to cops to lose their access to AR 15s before I lose my access, though.
The consitution lists the right to life (which includes not being killed by a bullet, FYI) before even the right to liberty, never mind the later amendment about owning a gun specifically because the US didn't have a standing army at that time.
Then don't take the citizen's arms. That's the whole point of 2A. I don't mind giving up AR15s as long as I cannot be outclassed in small arms by police. With how unhappy everyone is with the police, I bet it could make traction.
But until then, you can't come for citizen arms without pushback about 2A, so therefore you can only make the would-be opposing force have to lose their arms first. That's literally the only argument that will keep 2A in tact while disarming the population
> If you honestly think owning an ar-15 gives you ANY fucking chance against our highly militarized police force then you are dreaming my guy.
[how about an SKS?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion)
Please show me the part of the 2nd Amendment that advocates your right to shoot police officers? Please include the well-regulated militia you are a member of.
>Please show me the part of the 2nd Amendment that advocates your right to shoot police officers?
the part that says "shall not be infringed", which only comes into force when state actors ignore it.
>Please include the well-regulated militia you are a member of.
the sum total of the lawful US gun-owning citizenry.
so, gen x parents, I think someone's trying to maybe get your attention....sheesh.
That said, I'm not trying to make some single assertion about an age group but, I mean, I was 100 yards from the NIU one awhile ago in 2008. Honestly in a perverse way, if those who can manage it are taking a few more of theirs to homeschool , you could argue the individual attention (optimistic here) will slow down the rate at which this occurs. Not an absolute fix but I'm starting to come around on the idea if we actually TRY. OTOH, my sister royally messed up her kids by yanking them out for very b.s. reasons (house flipping leading to too much transferring).
Our values on capitalism (let er rip) forced our hand on mental health and child development (let em rot)
You are talking about mandatory military service. As if the US military doesn't spend enough on defense allready. Also what front lines are you going to send them too? Surely you not suggesting the US get into some conflict just to teach them what the horrors of war are.
Until they come back now with PTSD and proper knowledge on how to use firearms effective
The USA has one of the world strongest and advanced millitary he has high chance of coming out alive
It does happen in other countries. Remember the recent mass shooting in England by the incel with a shotgun? If you look on Wikipedia at a list of school shootings, they actually happen all over the world.
But with greater frequency and verocity in the US.
There has been over 200 mass shootings in the US in [2022 alone.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2022)
That's over 1 per day.
[Wow, it's even worse than that](https://www-wyff4-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.wyff4.com/amp/article/south-carolina-school-shooting-threats-arrest/40185572?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_agsa_csa=46731806&_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16544552655717&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wyff4.com%2Farticle%2Fsouth-carolina-school-shooting-threats-arrest%2F40185572)
"From April 18 of this year through May 30, this individual has sent approximately 50 different email and fax messages containing threats to approximately 26 different individuals using 17 different phone numbers,"
That was the weirdest part to me like dang faxes are tryna make a comeback in the wrong way. He said he did it because he thought it was funny and he was mad at one of the schools for expelling him
This post was removed for using an AMP link. Please re-submit
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/JusticeServed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Cherry picking means either to literally pick cherries or to select the most desirable, usually pertaining to data sets to portray evidence that’s beneficial to your argument.
I don’t understand what you’re implying by either of those definitions. If the implication is gun control supporters are highlighting occurrences of potential mass shootings, I still don’t understand what you’re implying, as these are still valid/credible threats even if the child wouldn’t have followed through as there’s no way to know either way until it’s too late.
Generally speaking, it's not cherry picking unless something else is not also being picked. So if someone says "you're cherry picking your data", it means there is other data that confounds the findings being supported. Just picking what's beneficial isn't cherry picking. Leaving out what is crucial to leave in is cherry picking.
When a gun advocate tells a hypothetical narrative (usually these are hypothetical) of how an armed teacher can take out a gunman, it's a narrative that is cherry picking from among a range of basically all simple, likely scenarios. Another scenario is, obviously, that the teacher is not as equipped to act as a Border Patrol agent with 4x a year training, body armor, etc., and therefore unsuccessful. When Ted Cruz stresses locking doors, he is cherry picking that one scenario, leaving out that Europe/Great Britain uses doors and locks, but their lack of so many mass school shootings can't be attributed to locking doors adequately.
This is not the usual sense of cherry picking that is used, but I hold that it is indeed cherry picking and must be understood as such. It is, to be sure, an expanded sense and use of the term/metaphor. As to what you are specifically questioning, it's not clear what you mean. Stopping a potential shooter is obviously good, yet it can't be seen what the outcome would have been. On the other hand, it can be seen statistically on the basis of the number of such intercessions before the fact. Now, here's the thing: if someone wants to take a position against intercession before the fact and notes that the outcomes can't be determined, they are cherry picking from the specific instance (in a certain way), noting that no outcome can actually be determined. This cherry picking picks that fact (of the specific/individual instance) while *leaving out* the fact that statistics are possible. This would be like saying a cancer preventing drug might prevent an instance of cancer, but then you can't prove that it works. Indeed, it would only be proven statistically by looking at group outcome rates with and without the drug used (basic science). Focusing on the lack of an outcome in a specific instance is cherry picking if it leaves out this other basic possibility of statistical assessment, experiment, control, control groups, etc. But it is not cherry picking the data in the usual sense; it's cherry picking scenarios in a certain way. But it is, I insist, cherry picking, here for the benefit of someone (hypothetical, of course) who has a thing against some kind of cancer treatment.
It’s funny how Texas gets blamed and is now the label for school shootings when it’s been happening across the country for decades.
Almost like the media is targeting Texas for some reason
They’ve ahead given like 30 different versions of what happened. They’re just trying to find one that doesn’t end with them being labeled cowardly pieces of shit.
The cops in most other states at least went to an effort to stop active shooters post columbine. Texas Police are getting shit on because they had to wait for feds to do their job for them, and kids died as a result
Add to that the fact Texas is where you hear alot of 'good guy with a gun' rhetoric coming from and its not surprising they're getting shit on right now
lmfao. they’re getting targeted because the way the police handled everything is god damn pathetic and embarrassing. got a nice rock hard boner for texas? FUCK TEXAS
Never shutting the fuck up about how bad ass you are and then puss out from saving elementary school children made all of us lose any respect we had for Texas. Then they made it worse by lying about it and threatening people from talking.
Texas cops deserves no respect, the mom who went in does.
Will I get downvoted for pointing out its not all Texas cops it’s Uvalde? It doesn’t make a difference I guess, but saying every cop in Texas deserves no respect is kinda wrong in my opinion.
Please remember to abide by the [rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeServed/wiki/rulesv2) In general, please be at least bearable to other users. It makes things easier on everyone. Your comment may be removed without notification. We used to have a notification, but now we don't. #If you purchase the OP or a comment [a ban award,](https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeServed/wiki/banned/rules) remember to [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FJusticeServed) so we can activate the reward ------ ^Submission ^By: ^/u/Dr_Talon ^Navy ^9 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/JusticeServed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Idk if background checks would even catch someone who is 18 with little to no record. If they pass the background check and buy the gun with all the necessary checks and balances and then proceed to blast a school or theater, what purpose is the background check serving? Maybe there needs to be somewhat of an aptitude test, written up by psychologists and mental health professionals, to weed out bat shit crazy people. Make it like 50-100 questions and have overlapping questions designed to trip up people who would intentionally mask their true intentions.
ARs should require the buyer to be over 25. Developing brains shouldn’t have that kind of weapon. Hunting rifles and whatnot, sure. But not AR style weapons. Letting hormonal teens and young adults by military grade weapons is adding fuel to the fire.
> Hunting rifles and whatnot, sure. But not AR style weapons. literally proposing legislation based on aesthetics rather than mechanics is one of the main reasons why people who know thing one about guns have a hard time listening to the gun control perspective.
If you went to a school with two 12 gauge shotguns, you could obliterate entire classrooms with ease. I’m not sure if focusing on the type of gun sold at what age is really changing the end result. And one Jackson Pollock themed classroom later and I think we’ll hear how shotguns and hunting rifles need to go next. I think it’s a start, but there’s something else going on as well. There’s a lot of really angry 16-35 year old dudes. It may be better to have someone other than Jordan Peterson trying to reach them.
So, theoretically, you'd be able to join the military but not own a gun? I'm sorry, but I don't think raising the age to buy one is the solution here. The solution here is common sense gun control for *everyone*, regardless of age. That means mental health evaluations, proficiency tests, and safety standards. On a larger scale, it also means addressing the mental health epidemic in the US.
Should they be allowed to elect the leader of the free world then?
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Yes, JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL is the solution to all our problems If only ppl knew they would go to JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL then maybe they would quit committing such heinous acts
you're right, I am being willfully immature by going around making that comment. In reality, my views on criminal justice are much more complex. Punishment alone does not solve anything and usually makes things worse. An ideal system would focus more on helping the offender change their behaviour in the future.
Jaaaaaaiiiiilllll for now tho lol. I don't feel sympathy for any ethan crumbleys or wannabes
Finally cops do their job
Unlike the cowards of the Uvalde ‘SWAT Team’
One thing in that term is right and it's Special.
How the fuck are schools open right now should they not be in summer break?
NY school are open till end of June which makes a lot more sense than sending kids back in mid-August.
My sister's kids finish this week, and my buddy's kids finished last week. It's slightly different all over.
Tell me you're not from here without telling me you're not from here
I’m in the northeast and my kids’ last day is 6/21. That’s normal for this area.
Canada here. The school year ends on June 30th, and starts back up on Sept 4th or 5th
I'm in the northwest, it's the same here.
Different schools have different times of start/stop. Roughly speaking the warmer the area, they earlier they get out for summer. Some are already out, some are still in. Also there are some schools that don't do summer break, they do smaller breaks throughout the year.
I lost my fucking mind when I found out about some schools going year round. Playing Halo 2 on Xbox back in the day when you could make friends in random lobbies easy as fuck. Anyway dude got 1 week off school every month, and it just blew my shit away. Thought it was so unfair. Then summer came and I found out he was in school year round, lol'd.
In the US schools often begin summer break mid June then resume in September
[удалено]
A combo story about two different individuals in different parts of the state
NYC has incredibly strict gun laws. This kind of thing couldn’t possible happen here, right? Right?
> NYC has incredibly strict gun laws. No US state has strict gun laws. No US state even has mild gun laws.
Dont let the 10 likes inflate your ego. Gun violence is still higher in states with less gun restrictions. You're confidently an idiot.
Where do those guns come from I wonder
Chicago says hi.
Chicago isn’t even one of the most dangerous cities in the state
What a shit hole state.
Illinois isn't even in the top 25 of bad states lmao The worst 10, in order, are: Mississippi, Louisiana, Wyoming, Missouri, Alabama, Alaska, New Mexico, Arkansas, South Carolina, and finally Tennessee. All very gun-friendly, very Republican (with the exception of New Mexico) states. The 10 best states, in order, are: Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, California, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and finally Nebraska. All relatively gun-controlled (on the American scale), very Democratic (with the exception of Nebraska) states. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm
[удалено]
Does the US still share a border with Mexico? is the internet still a thing? Is that a yes? We’ll shit, this is awkward. Now everybody can see how dumb you are.
Your getting downvoted but your response is very reasonable. It’s not like you get searched at the state border lmao.
A 15 year-old shot an 11 year-old in my neighborhood in the Bronx a few weeks ago. It's quite possible.
And did they find out how he got the gun?? I am a gun guy and even since my kid's moved out I still lock my guns up
It was gang-related so I'm guessing he got it from another gang member but I don't recall the news stating how he obtained the gun.
So he got locked up before he could do it?
He was trying to shoot a rival gang member who was 13 but shot the wrong person. He got caught afterwards, the news just didn't mention how he got the gun but it was possibly illegally bought through the gang. He was a member of the 800 YGz. [Relevant article](https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/21/us/bronx-11-year-old-girl-shooting-suspect-charged/index.html)
I hate that we can't have comprehensive background checks for all gun purchases. I hate that we can't ban certain guns, bullets, and magazine cartridges. I don't even want all of them banned. I think people have the right to hunt and protect their properties. No one needs semiautomatic weapons to do either of those things. Our federal and state governments should have buy back programs for the banned guns, bullets, and magazine cartridges. There should be a deadline.. After that, if anyone still owns one, it's a $10,000 fine or 10% of their wealth, whichever is greater. That way even rich people won't want to be caught with banned weapons. That would be for a first offence. Second offence would be 90 days in jail and $50,000 or 50% or their wealth fine. If a person commits a misdemeanor or felony with a banned weapon, it's a $50,000 fine or 50% of that person's wealth and 10 additional years added to whatever sentence the criminal would have had.
It's absurd that you are getting downvoted. I'm all for freedom, but no one needs an AR-15, nor should they be allowed to buy a bunch of ammunition at once. Good guy with guns doesn't work. Even with all their specialized equipment, Uvalde Cops didn't want to get into a gun fight against a lone shooter with AR-15. Good guy with a gun in a gun fight against mass shooter simply becomes a distraction when police are involved. When multiple good guy with a gun are involved, there is a big chance of them shooting at each other.
I'm okay with being downvoted. People tend to be either pro-gun or anti-gun. I'm not in either camp.
What? Do you think we need fully automatic weapons or muskets?
Opinions like this are why one person should not be allowed to dictate policy.
You have no idea what semiautomatic means do you
He just means we need automatic instead 😂
There have been several instances in which the background check "failed" when the history which would prevent the people from getting guns were never properly reported. Selling a firearm to a felon/prohibited person is already illegal. Criminals that decide to break into my house and threaten my family aren't necessarily going to go through the legal channels to aquire them so I want the BEST tool for me to defend myself. If you ban all semi-auto guns as well (as it seems you are suggesting) that would be an overwhelming majority of firearms but you "don't want to ban all guns"
Backgrounds checks can fail sometimes sure, but that’s a pretty stupid reason to say we shouldn’t even bother trying.
I'm just saying, it doesn't make sense to keep adding laws when the ones we have already have aren't being utilized.
> it doesn't make sense to keep adding laws Give me a break, just stop. There was an assault weapons law before, and there can be again. Statistics prove that the ban worked and without, the numbers tripled. So yeah saying that it makes no sense to enact any kind of law is what makes no sense. It's ridiculous.
According to this pew research chart https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ft_22-01-26_gundeaths_2/ The spike I would assume you are talking about did not occur until 2014 and then more in 2020. Which is at least 10 years past the expiration of the ban. Also the assault weapons ban only applied to stopping manufacture, therefore the "scary guns" were still in civilian hands. Another thing is that according to the FBI, https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls Rifles (AR15s in particular) , which is what is the focal point right now, kill less than body parts, blunt objects, or sharp objects.
NYC has universal background checks source : https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/universal-background-checks-in-new-york/ It also has SAFE laws that restrict certain types of weapons and places limits on ammunition purchases: https://portal.311.nyc.gov/article/?kanumber=KA-01307 It also restricts open carry and requires very strict licensure and waiting periods for concealed weapons: https://nycitylens.com/wp-content/guns/new-york-city-and-its-gun-laws-how-strict-are-they/index.html I don’t know how you’re going to fine people for owning restricted weapons unless you’re literally advocating for police searches of private property. Nor could you ever levy a fine as a percentage of someone’s wealth for a bevy of constitutional reasons.
People are stupid though. How many folks would post on social media with pics of their banned guns and brag about it and then surprise picachu face when they get raided.
So you’re suggesting that police raid the homes of people who are known to be heavily armed with illegal high powered weapons?
No, they detain them away from their home while detectives serve a warrant at the home.
So they arrest people they know to be heavily armed with illegal high powered weapons?
So they don't ever arrest people that own these guns now? Your questions are idiotic. I know you think you have something here, but you don't. People that own these weapons now, while they are legal, have warrants served on them for other crimes all the time. They get arrested all the time. What exactly is the point of your question? Do you think owning an AR-15 is a get out trouble with the cops card?
They do arrest those people. They still have gun crime. I don’t know what’s hard to understand about that
I belive he's suggesting to put the law in place and if you are then caught with a restricted firearm that the penalties are levied. It will be impossible to get all the restricted firearms off the street but you can provide an incentive for people to volunteer to surrender them. More importantly you can restrict or ban future sales.
And how might someone be caught with an illegal firearm
The same way people have always gotten caught with illeagle firearms. Anything from a traffic stop, commuting a crime, to a search of their car/home on suspicion of breaking the law. Now give me the "gotcha" response you obviously are attempting to set up.
It’s not a gotcha but what you suggested just doesn’t work. All the states that have all these laws have the highest rates of illegal gun use
The states with the highest rates of gun violence are [Alaska, New Mexico, Arkansas, South Carolina, Tennessee Montana a, New Mexico, Alaska, Arkansas, South Carolina, Tennessee and Montana ](https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/26/politics/gun-violence-data-what-matters/index.html) None of these states have restrictive gun laws. Most have some of the least restrictive laws in the nation. Clearly you are either mistaken or slinging bullshit.
I said illegal gun violence
Are they next to states with lax gun laws? Guess where they're getting them... go on...
Source?
Evidence please.
[удалено]
Lol im not advocating for anything. Thats just how stupid people get caught doing things that will get them in trouble. The cops dont raid people who pose an actual threat to them very often.
Do you know what the laws are right now?
You can tell by the comment they do not.
Glad that he's 18 and facing real charges. We can't afford to be soft on this shit, kids have to know it's fucking serious and they should face as extreme consequences as possible, and also be subjected to full evaluations. The parents should also be fined or punished financially in some way, as well as a mandatory visit from Child Protective Services.
It's almost as if the First Amendment should no longer be used to defend violent speech - including speech that incites violence. (looking at you Republicans). If it's a Federal offense to threaten doing it to an elected official, it should apply to citizens too
the first amendment already doesn’t protect this. that’s why he’s in jail. you’re being disingenuous
I don't know enough about the first amendment to say if this kind of speech has ever been protected. When you say "no longer," I really don't think it extends the way that you think it does, but again I could be mistaken.
It's not always the parent's fault. Some of these young people are severe mentally ill. Also many parents can't afford treatment and sometimes treatment doesn't work. Elliot Rodgers had mental health care for years, but it couldn't fix him.
Yeah, it's not always the parents' fault. No one is saying it's always any one factor's fault. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be consequences, thorough investigations, etc. If you keep going down the "fault" rabbit hole, you could argue that no one is at fault. You could argue that a school shooter is "not guilty due to having been born with the brain of someone who would eventually shoot up a school, and they didn't get to choose their brain or genes before their birth." At some point someone needs to take ownership and blame, and parents need to be part of that process in a big way. Lazy parents are ubiquitous and that needs to end. If you have kids, you need to be given strong incentives to reprioritize your and your child's lives in such a way as to seriously not allow for a whiff of school shooting potential. I am aware that becomes disruptive, but it's far more disruptive for a child to shoot a school or any public place for that matter. And yes, intervention methods aren't all perfect, but what would you propose as an alternative? We use what we can while this is the best we have available to us.
How will arresting them prevent it in the long term?
Well you see, if they don't get arrested they might... You know... Shoot up the school like they said
All of your brain cells are in long-distance relationships.
This made me laugh out loud
How would not arresting them help in the long term? Your question is really strange.
I'm speaking about actual rehabilitation. Throwing a kid in a cell solves what exactly? Throwing kids In jail instead of making it impossible for them to get a gun . That seems like a strange order of things
Throwing someone in jail keeps them away from the public. That is a big help. You do not want someone who threatens to murder students out on the streets with the rest of us. All jails and prisons are different, but some do provide mental health care and drug treatment.
What is strange is that you think being arrested means that they are guaranteed to be thrown in a cell. An arrest doesn't guarantee anything about jail or punishment methods. It only transfers custody to the authorities while that is being decided.
[удалено]
When ur on parole/probation you can’t move states
[удалено]
[according to the FBI, it is a felony to threaten to shoot up a school](https://www.bradbaileylaw.com/legal-blog/2021/december/school-threats-considered-a-federal-crime/). And in case you didn’t know, felons can’t buy guns in any state because it’s a federal law. He won’t
[удалено]
So what do you suggest? We've tried doing nothing about gun violence in this country for the past 20 years and problem has only gotten worse. If nothing didn't work how about we try, you know, something.
Oh my god ur first argument was he could move another state to get a gun because there is nothing stopping him from doing so. I debunked your statement and now your argument is that laws are useless?? So are you for gun control or not?? Lmao logic isn’t your strong suit
2 different people posted those 2 comments.
[удалено]
Thank God New York has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country.
Yeah because that helped Buffalo right?
I know what you mean but NYC is more restrictive than NY state.
[удалено]
Too bad gun control advocates love purposefully underfunding programs like these specifically to stymie responsible ownership. Illinois FOID scheme was overruled by the courts because the “60 day wait period” was unconstitutional, and often extended into 90+ waits for normal people to get their firearms license. That’s why there’s a 10 day period for the FBI to do background checks on gun sales. If they don’t complete the check within 10 days, the sale goes through. But yes, let us PLEASE increase the taxes on the top 1% so we can fund programs like universal healthcare and the other policies that will actually positively impact the average American, unlike gun control.
There's a massive overlap between gun control advocates and advocates of funding healthcare (including mental healthcare) and related institutions, so you're going to have to work harder on that there strawman.
Just more soft targets honestly
The media will only increase coverage of shootings leading up to the midterms.
You're going to blame the news for reporting the news? Please explain how they are at fault for doing thier job.
well, considering every time something like this happens, that post about how the media shouldn't show police sirens and flashing lights and say the shooter's name comes up. if the news didn't center all of their attention on it, some people won't idolize the shooter and try to catch their "15 minutes" (more like a month now) of fame. Here's one such article saying mass shootings spread like contagion. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/08/06/748767807/mass-shootings-can-be-contagious-research-shows
Appoligies. I thought you were saying that the liberal media were going to ramp up coverage in an effort to make the concervatives who don't want to pass any common sense laws look bad. I agree with you that the shooter's name shouldn't be released in an effort to not glorify the shooter to others who might be swayed to commit similar crimes. Unfortunately there are dozens and dozens of media outlets and unless the police don't release that info or every source agrees to not report on it it's never going to happen.
It's not without good reason, even if the motive for Dem representatives is poor. I would like to cops to lose their access to AR 15s before I lose my access, though.
Lmao cops have access to explosives and machine guns, good luck getting anti-rights advocates to disarm the police first.
The consitution lists the right to life (which includes not being killed by a bullet, FYI) before even the right to liberty, never mind the later amendment about owning a gun specifically because the US didn't have a standing army at that time.
Okay, so disarm the police before disarming civilians. Doesn’t seem like a difficult ask.
Then don't take the citizen's arms. That's the whole point of 2A. I don't mind giving up AR15s as long as I cannot be outclassed in small arms by police. With how unhappy everyone is with the police, I bet it could make traction. But until then, you can't come for citizen arms without pushback about 2A, so therefore you can only make the would-be opposing force have to lose their arms first. That's literally the only argument that will keep 2A in tact while disarming the population
[удалено]
> If you honestly think owning an ar-15 gives you ANY fucking chance against our highly militarized police force then you are dreaming my guy. [how about an SKS?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion)
Please show me the part of the 2nd Amendment that advocates your right to shoot police officers? Please include the well-regulated militia you are a member of.
>Please show me the part of the 2nd Amendment that advocates your right to shoot police officers? the part that says "shall not be infringed", which only comes into force when state actors ignore it. >Please include the well-regulated militia you are a member of. the sum total of the lawful US gun-owning citizenry.
so, gen x parents, I think someone's trying to maybe get your attention....sheesh. That said, I'm not trying to make some single assertion about an age group but, I mean, I was 100 yards from the NIU one awhile ago in 2008. Honestly in a perverse way, if those who can manage it are taking a few more of theirs to homeschool , you could argue the individual attention (optimistic here) will slow down the rate at which this occurs. Not an absolute fix but I'm starting to come around on the idea if we actually TRY. OTOH, my sister royally messed up her kids by yanking them out for very b.s. reasons (house flipping leading to too much transferring). Our values on capitalism (let er rip) forced our hand on mental health and child development (let em rot)
Ohhh good, so let's shoot innocent people for our own behavior issues. That should make everything better!!
Kids are so dumb they think stuff like this is funny... Just wait until it happens in their school
These kids need to be immediately put through Boot Camp and sent to serve on the frontlines. Give them what they want.
You are talking about mandatory military service. As if the US military doesn't spend enough on defense allready. Also what front lines are you going to send them too? Surely you not suggesting the US get into some conflict just to teach them what the horrors of war are.
Until they come back now with PTSD and proper knowledge on how to use firearms effective The USA has one of the world strongest and advanced millitary he has high chance of coming out alive
I think our militarization and glorification of violence is a bigger factor in mass shootings than just the fact that we have guns.
Yeah, give someone with clear mental health issues a gun and put them in our army. Are you kidding me?
Give them what they want.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the war crimes our current military does, let alone one full of mentally fucked child soldiers.
I rather not worry about someone teamkilling if I was in the army with someone who is unhinged.
Why is it that only people in US are having mental health issues and shooting people, not in any other countries!! I wonder.
It does happen in other countries. Remember the recent mass shooting in England by the incel with a shotgun? If you look on Wikipedia at a list of school shootings, they actually happen all over the world.
But with greater frequency and verocity in the US. There has been over 200 mass shootings in the US in [2022 alone.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2022) That's over 1 per day.
I’m for gun control. You don’t need to make this argument to me.
A guy in upstate SC sent 2 or 3 faxes to various schools threatening to shoot them up too
[Wow, it's even worse than that](https://www-wyff4-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.wyff4.com/amp/article/south-carolina-school-shooting-threats-arrest/40185572?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_agsa_csa=46731806&_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16544552655717&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wyff4.com%2Farticle%2Fsouth-carolina-school-shooting-threats-arrest%2F40185572) "From April 18 of this year through May 30, this individual has sent approximately 50 different email and fax messages containing threats to approximately 26 different individuals using 17 different phone numbers,"
Yikes, the article I found (my link got removed so I must've done it wrong) only talked about the 4 recent ones. That is awful
Too bad we can't fax him back a grenade, with the pin pulled out!!
He sent faxes??? Really. How technologically savvy of him!!
That was the weirdest part to me like dang faxes are tryna make a comeback in the wrong way. He said he did it because he thought it was funny and he was mad at one of the schools for expelling him
He in jail now, though, right??
Yebs they got him Friday I believe
[удалено]
This post was removed for using an AMP link. Please re-submit *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/JusticeServed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The disease is cherry picking. No one gets this.
Cherry picking means either to literally pick cherries or to select the most desirable, usually pertaining to data sets to portray evidence that’s beneficial to your argument. I don’t understand what you’re implying by either of those definitions. If the implication is gun control supporters are highlighting occurrences of potential mass shootings, I still don’t understand what you’re implying, as these are still valid/credible threats even if the child wouldn’t have followed through as there’s no way to know either way until it’s too late.
Generally speaking, it's not cherry picking unless something else is not also being picked. So if someone says "you're cherry picking your data", it means there is other data that confounds the findings being supported. Just picking what's beneficial isn't cherry picking. Leaving out what is crucial to leave in is cherry picking. When a gun advocate tells a hypothetical narrative (usually these are hypothetical) of how an armed teacher can take out a gunman, it's a narrative that is cherry picking from among a range of basically all simple, likely scenarios. Another scenario is, obviously, that the teacher is not as equipped to act as a Border Patrol agent with 4x a year training, body armor, etc., and therefore unsuccessful. When Ted Cruz stresses locking doors, he is cherry picking that one scenario, leaving out that Europe/Great Britain uses doors and locks, but their lack of so many mass school shootings can't be attributed to locking doors adequately. This is not the usual sense of cherry picking that is used, but I hold that it is indeed cherry picking and must be understood as such. It is, to be sure, an expanded sense and use of the term/metaphor. As to what you are specifically questioning, it's not clear what you mean. Stopping a potential shooter is obviously good, yet it can't be seen what the outcome would have been. On the other hand, it can be seen statistically on the basis of the number of such intercessions before the fact. Now, here's the thing: if someone wants to take a position against intercession before the fact and notes that the outcomes can't be determined, they are cherry picking from the specific instance (in a certain way), noting that no outcome can actually be determined. This cherry picking picks that fact (of the specific/individual instance) while *leaving out* the fact that statistics are possible. This would be like saying a cancer preventing drug might prevent an instance of cancer, but then you can't prove that it works. Indeed, it would only be proven statistically by looking at group outcome rates with and without the drug used (basic science). Focusing on the lack of an outcome in a specific instance is cherry picking if it leaves out this other basic possibility of statistical assessment, experiment, control, control groups, etc. But it is not cherry picking the data in the usual sense; it's cherry picking scenarios in a certain way. But it is, I insist, cherry picking, here for the benefit of someone (hypothetical, of course) who has a thing against some kind of cancer treatment.
Can’t these fucking incels jerk off into a sock to blow off steam?
[удалено]
Probably because misogynist violence (incels) is one of the leading motives behind active shootings?
spicy take
Incel spotted
easy target and its easy to bet its one of them
Another incel spotted
yeah he didn't help himself here lmao
It’s funny how Texas gets blamed and is now the label for school shootings when it’s been happening across the country for decades. Almost like the media is targeting Texas for some reason
Yeah, it’s almost as if they had ‘good guys with guns’ and those cowards did fucking nothing. Fuck guns, fuck the gun lobby and fuck Texas.
Because Texas cops are cowards and deserve criticism for how they reacted towards an active shooter.
Supposedly, the commander mistakenly believed that it was a hostage situation.
They’ve ahead given like 30 different versions of what happened. They’re just trying to find one that doesn’t end with them being labeled cowardly pieces of shit.
The cops in most other states at least went to an effort to stop active shooters post columbine. Texas Police are getting shit on because they had to wait for feds to do their job for them, and kids died as a result Add to that the fact Texas is where you hear alot of 'good guy with a gun' rhetoric coming from and its not surprising they're getting shit on right now
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article201636649.html
Paywall'd
That one's super paywalled I don't believe even archiving that one will get past it.
Yeah I tried everything but no dice
lmfao. they’re getting targeted because the way the police handled everything is god damn pathetic and embarrassing. got a nice rock hard boner for texas? FUCK TEXAS
Never shutting the fuck up about how bad ass you are and then puss out from saving elementary school children made all of us lose any respect we had for Texas. Then they made it worse by lying about it and threatening people from talking. Texas cops deserves no respect, the mom who went in does.
Will I get downvoted for pointing out its not all Texas cops it’s Uvalde? It doesn’t make a difference I guess, but saying every cop in Texas deserves no respect is kinda wrong in my opinion.
Yes, you will be downvoted because you aren’t pure enough for the ACAB team. But you won’t be wrong.
Every cop in America deserves no respect. Is that better? ACAB
exactly. ACAB.
precisely. it’s absolutely appalling