I would say it’s a lot of things. The normalization of divorce, poor school engagement, a decade of financial struggle for many, disappearing middle class, a host of dissonant ideas and beliefs presented in the media, never ending stream of advertisement and divisive political speech.

People are trying to destroy the US as much as they are trying to preserve its legacy. Ultimately, you get a psychological battlefield many aren’t prepare for.

People who want us to make policy based off of pain or start your actions from a position of anger don’t give a fuck about us. That’s what being manipulated and used is.

The politicians that are orchestrating the mass manipulation of these kids for their own purposes should be identified.

Media doesn’t care. It knows it can control you with fear and it’s going to push it down our throats whether we want it or not.

That's the crux of the problem. Roughly 1/3 of the population either can't think for themselves or are so blinded by the incessant propaganda they refuse to see the forest for the trees.

But, I digress. Woke folks will be just fine. Imo, we far outnumber those asleep at the wheel. If everything media related is mostly bullshit, then so are the numbers.

It's weird how selective it is for gun bans to be pushed after tragedies. After some shootings there are only a few murmurs online, and then after others there are full protests and every social media platform is flooded with posts about it.

The Wall Street Journal tweeted that 150 kids were killed in school shootings since 1990. Then heyjackass tweeted that over 17,000 people were shot to death in Chicago over the same time period... but no one thinks that’s a problem.

lots of people think shootings in urban areas are a problem, do you live under a fucking rock or just willfully ignore things that don't fit your narrative?

And guess what? Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. A lot of good that did, huh? It's almost like criminals don't obey laws or something!

Look at Chicago’s surrounding areas you moron.

YUP

almost like it's incredibly easy to drive to the bordering states that have some of the most lax gun laws to purchase weapons. quit being a snide fuck.

Its almost like it's incredibly easy for criminals to get a hold of guns if they want to.

People like you want to take gun rights away from law abiding citizens. Like guns will just disappear here. This isn't the UK or Australia. The illegal gun trade here is one of the biggest in the world.

so let's not do anything cause criminals will somehow find a way to get guns?

i'm not trying to take your rights away. i just want there to be strict gun laws enforced on a national level. again, are you just saying the problem is so bad we shouldn't attempt to stop it and that people should die because you think some boogeyman is gonna take your rights?

They don't even enforce the ones already on the books and your type is crying for more. How about you demand the laws already in place are enforced first?

The "enforce the laws" camp got a boost last week from a study by the Americans for Gun Safety Foundation that documents the embarrassing extent to which federal gun laws are not, in fact, enforced. Of the 22 major federal gun statutes, 20 are almost completely ignored. And they happen to be the laws intended to combat the black-market for firearms."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-shoot-blanks-on-gun-laws/

Seriously. Educate yourself beyond what you hear on the news.

opinion article from 2003 got anything more current?

Yep. That was the first search result. There are plenty out there, and that report that's linked is still relevant.

The Obama administration has failed in gun control because it has failed to enforce existing gun laws.

https://mic.com/articles/22802/gun-control-facts-existing-gun-laws-would-reduce-crime-but-these-are-not-enforced#.SFWtaQIfx

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bloomberg-urges-enforcement-of-federal-gun-laws/

The administration has overseen a striking drop in prosecutions of gun crimes, winning only about 6,000 convictions in 2015 — down more than 15 percent from five years ago, and giving added weight to claims by gun rights groups that President Obama has failed to enforce the laws already on the books.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/31/obama-gun-control-push-undercut-by-fall-in-prosecu/

Stopping and reducing illegal gun trafficking is a laudable cause, but this legislation won't make a difference because the feds already fail to enforce similar laws already on the books. In fact, even possible presidential candidate and Vice President Joe Biden has admitted the Department of Justice "doesn't have time" to prosecute people who lie on background check forms or straw purchasers who play a large role in the gun trafficking problem. Also, a reminder of former ATF Director B. Todd Jones' confirmation hearing:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/09/10/feds-fail-to-enforce-gun-trafficking-laws-congress-introduces-new-legislation-anyway-n2049834

do you ever make your own points or just copy paragraphs straight from articles?

one article says that a lack of prosecution is occurring because a smaller amount of cases are being brought because overall murder rates are dropping.

joe biden went on to say that they don't have the time because they don't have the man power and that the current systems allow for you to just lie and check a box incorrectly and you receive a gun. on top of that townhall is a bullshit excuse of a source funded by the koch bros so forgive me for not giving a shit about it.

so pretty much you've made my point that current laws in place are A. ineffective and B. not strictly enforced, which means we as a country need to enact stricter gun control policy's when it comes to legislation and enforcement.

My point is federal gun laws are not enforced. The first article, which you ignored, into depth as to why. There are countless resources on this. Though your tactic is to attack the source. You want more gun laws when the current laws aren't even enforced. This is the definition of illogical reasoning that originates from emotion instead of fact.

And the townhall link has a hearing from the former ATF director linked, which you obviously did not listen to either.

I don't know why I bother with your type because there's no reasoning with people who operate on emotion over logic.

i just want there to be strict gun laws enforced on a national level.

it looks like we have the same point, i too want gun laws to be enforced. you read this as me saying i think the only solution is to add more gun laws. while i think more gun laws would be helpful in some instances, it's equally important that gun laws are enforced, which i said i wanted.

i don't know why you think you know my "type" and feel that acting as if only people who agree with you use logic and reasoning, and everyone else is doesn't. it makes you come off like a huge cocksucker and turns people off from taking you or your arguments seriously.

maybe don't put words in peoples mouths and act like some know it all fuck boy and people will care about what you say.

Oh, look at you tough guy! Seems like people like you with big mouths would need a gun to back it up the most, because where I come from you call someone a fuck boy the result isn't pretty.

you shoot people for calling you a fuck boy? sounds like y'all are mentally unstable.

Yeah. That's totally what I said. Like I said. Emotion over logic.

you didn't say that though? you said people with big mouths need guns cause where you come from it won't end well for me. what are you implying with that threat??

No I said I hope you have a way to protect yourself if you're going to call people names like that. If I called someone a "fuck boy" where I come from I'd probably end up in the hospital.

But you go ahead and keep twisting what I said, little guy. It's cute!

Seems like people like you with big mouths would need a gun to back it up the most, because where I come from you call someone a fuck boy the end result isn't pretty.

tell me how i twisted what you said

I just explained what I said. Maybe you could stop being triggered and use your reading comprehension skills, if you even have any.

right, you said i need a gun cause of a vague threat you made to me, cause your weak ego couldn't handle being called a fuck boy. sad little snowflake.

Hahahahahhaa. You're scared of inanimate objects and I'm the snowflake? Hahaha.

lolololol what am i scared off?

Dude, how could you take that as a threat?

He said in his part of the world.

You fellas are the reason this sub is atrophying.

because it was a threat.

i don't give a fuck about this sub to begin with. and on top of it it's people who are allowed to make a post like this, that isn't a conspiracy of any sort, that dilute the content of the sub.

Reddit has been invaded for a long time, pay attention to the owner ship swaps, and what happened to Aaron Swartz.

I don't think you understand the content of this sub or what is really happening to reddit as a site, but if you don't give a fuck, then remain comfortable being so unflappable.

stay woke big guy

Lol, way to play off being skeptical as a joke in a conspiracy sub.

You really aren't from around here are ya?

lol you didn't put 2 and 2 together when i told you i don't give a fuck about this sub?

Then why troll it with bullshit trying to argue with people?

Are you really that fucking bored? You know this site actually has porn. That might be more up to your speed than conspiratorial discussion.

You've basically admitted to trolling here, but how sad does a person have to be to attack conspiracies? lmao.

I put two and two together, but I enjoy getting users to admit to attempting to waste users time, you supplied no sources and attempted to make anyone who sent you sources out to be a fool.

If you're not even going to try, then why stumble in here?

dude i started talking to people who were essentially having a gun control debate. not at all a conspiracy based discussion. i refuted that other users points with lines from his own sources. should i link them back to him next time? how is that trolling?

you engaged me, responding to like 6 of my comments within minutes. are you bored? why don't you go jerk it to some of the reddit porn instead of bothering me?

So you don't think that conspiratorial issues cannot arise from online public perception gaming and through government action involving gun control?

I'm not bored, just trying to figure out ultimately what you're trying to get at. You haven't provided anything to the debate but what you believe should happen. I asked you if you actually had anything last comment and you hit me with this victim stuff here like I'm picking on you for asking you questions.

Yeah, I made the porn joke. Just figured you ought to white knuckle something else besides a keyboard and mouse for a bit. Relieve some of that pent-upness that's seeping through your words.

Wait, you asked for sources and then made fun of him for sending you some? Dope

i don't feel like i made fun of him for sending me sources, just saying that he's just pasting certain paragraphs from them as his comments.

I think finding a better solution would be necessary.

tight

Even though it's illegal to buy guns out of state and transport back across state lines, criminals still do it.

Even though it's illegal to murder people, criminals still do it with their illegally-obtained guns.

More laws must surely be the answer.

if both states have equally strict gun laws wouldn't that help prevent gun trafficking to begin with? why cross state lines if its equally hard to get guns there too?

to drive to the bordering states that have some of the most lax gun laws to purchase weapons

Hey, somebody tell this guy that it's illegal to buy handguns outside of your state of residence, and also a separate crime to sell them to known criminals.

oh shit really? fuck me then let's just sell guns at 7/11 then fuck it.

If they hold an FFL and follow proper background check reporting procedures, why the fuck not?

lol

Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country

According to the ATF, about 75% of guns used criminally in Chicago came from states with lax gun laws, where they were originally bought legally.

". He told the site that of the 7,000-plus guns he had traced in his work, "the great majority came from the people who were members of gangs ... part of the reason is those organizations are skilled at accessing guns."

https://mic.com/articles/127842/this-is-how-chicago-gets-flooded-with-illegal-guns#.41ea8uc8f Like I said, criminals will get access to guns no matter the avenue. Gun laws don't apply to criminals because they don't OBEY LAWS.

And these guns are sold as "straw purchases" which there are already federal laws against, which are not being enforced.

"Tracing an illegal gun is hard, because once it is sold on the private market in what’s called a straw purchase, the gun often no longer has a paper trail."

"Buying guns from licensed dealers for someone else is illegal. "Straw purchasers" break the law by fraudulently filling out a form that says they're the actual buyer, but they're actually buying the gun for another person — someone who might be avoiding a background check."

https://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/459053141/straw-buyers-of-guns-break-the-law-and-often-get-away-with-it

Like I said, criminals will get access to guns no matter the avenue. Gun laws don't apply to criminals because they don't OBEY LAWS.

So all laws should just be abolished?

the great majority came from the people who were members of gangs ... part of the reason is those organizations are skilled at accessing guns."

And the reason they're so skilled at accessing guns is because of lax laws in 37 states.

And these guns are sold as "straw purchases" which there are already federal laws against, which are not being enforced.

There's no way to enforce those laws without catching the person in the act of selling guns to criminals. But by cutting off their access to guns, they won't be able to sell them to criminals at all in the first place.

There are already laws against this. Where's the enforcement?

You can't enforce it. You have to stop the means by which they guns in the first place, so they can't sell them at all.

Why should it be legal in 37 states for someone to sell an AR-15 to someone else without even asking their name? Why can't we have universal background checks?

I'm fine with background checks, and the NICS already exists. The problem is the system currently in place isn't even effective. Why does no one demand these systems be fixed and enforced?

" The FBI's background-check system is missing millions of records of criminal convictions, mental illness diagnoses and other flags that would keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands, a gap that contributed to the shooting deaths of 26 people in a Texas church this week.

Experts who study the data say government agencies responsible for maintaining such records have long failed to forward them into federal databases used for gun background checks - systemic breakdowns that have lingered for decades as officials decided they were too costly and time-consuming to fix."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-fbi-gun-background-check-system-missing-records-20171110-story.html

There's been a complete failure all around to enforce already existing laws. This is the problem first and foremost that the talking heads screaming about "gun control" never acknowledge.

I'm fine with background checks, and the NICS already exists. The problem is the system currently in place isn't even effective. Why does no one demand these systems be fixed and enforced?

People are demanding it. I'm doing it right now. The largest broken piece of this is private sales, where guns can change hands with no background checks to criminals and crazy people.

There's been a complete failure all around to enforce already existing laws. This is the problem first and foremost that the talking heads screaming about "gun control" never acknowledge

I think that's disingenuous, considering you're linking an article where it's being acknowledged, and there has been tons of discussion about enforcing current laws better. The problem is, even if current laws were enforced perfectly, there would still be glaring gaps that would allow criminals and crazy people to get guns very easily.

Well they're not enforced perfectly, nowhere near that. So no one actually has any idea if more are actually needed. In fact, some of the mass shootings could have been prevented if gun laws were actually enforced properly, and the system already in place was fixed,and there's no new law thats been proposed that could have prevented the others.

"White House spokesman Josh Earnest struggled to answer direct questions Thursday about whether any of President Obama's proposed gun control measure would have prevented the recent mass shootings seen in the U.S.

Reporter Byron Tau brought up Sen. Marco Rubio's (R., Fla.) remark that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun legislation, a statement rated "True" by the Washington Post fact-checker."

http://freebeacon.com/issues/white-house-cant-name-a-mass-shooting-that-would-have-been-prevented-by-gun-control-legislation/

For years, the federal database that is supposed to stop dangerous people from buying guns has been undermined by missing records. At least three of America’s most high-profile mass shooters were legally barred from buying guns, but were able to purchase them anyway because of the federal system’s failures. Among them was the gunman who murdered 26 people in a Texas church this month.

Early reports from the mass shooting in northern California on Tuesday, which left five dead and included an attack on an elementary school, also suggested the shooter had been barred from owning firearms by a court order.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/16/senates-new-gun-law-reuses-old-ideas-and-stops-short-on-background-checks

Well they're not enforced perfectly, nowhere near that. So no one actually has any idea if more are actually needed.

That's just not true. Even if all the laws on the books were enforced perfectly, there would still be 37 states where a criminal or crazy person could buy an AR-15 through a private sale with no problem.

Reporter Byron Tau brought up Sen. Marco Rubio's (R., Fla.) remark that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun legislation, a statement rated "True" by the Washington Post fact-checker."

I'd like to see that revisited, considering how many more mass shootings we've had in the 2+ years since that article was published. I would also like to know about shootings that they didn't consider "recent".

Also, there are 30,000+ gun deaths in the US every year. How many of those would have been prevented by new legislation? The answer is definitely well into the thousands, considering how many gun deaths in inner cities are due to guns being purchased in states with lax laws.

For years, the federal database that is supposed to stop dangerous people from buying guns has been undermined by missing records. At least three of America’s most high-profile mass shooters were legally barred from buying guns, but were able to purchase them anyway because of the federal system’s failures

And no one is saying that shouldn't be addressed. But even if it were, there are 37 states where they could have bought guns without background checks at all, and that also needs to be addressed.

I already said background checks are fine. But once again, you missed the point. So we require background checks for every single gun purchase, private or otherwise. There's still the massive problem where information isn't being sent to the proper channels that do the background checks, so thousands will still slide through. Go ahead and pass a universal background check law, it's not going to work until they fix the system already in place. The NICS is who will do the background checks, and they're not receiving the proper information to do them effectively.

That's why I've said repeatedly there's no new law that will be effective until there's proper enforcement of the laws already in place. Funding should go to fixing the system, not trying to enforce new laws that will depend on that system. There's no logic in that.

Go ahead and pass a universal background check law, it's not going to work until they fix the system already in place.

It's not like the background check system doesn't work at all. It may have its faults, but it's denied about 2 million applications over the years, so it does work to a degree. So universal background checks will definitely be an improvement over the current laws, even with an imperfect background check system.

Funding should go to fixing the current system, not trying to enforce new laws that will depend on that system. There's no logic in that.

Why not both? The system does work to a degree, so there's no logic in thinking expanding the system won't work at all unless the system works perfectly.

They don't get enough airtime because it's not new and fresh, and it doesn't threaten the major populace like a school shooting does.

They would rather focus the attention to the fear of a random atrocity, instead if the rampant abuse and continuous catastrophe that people in the inner cities deal with.

shooting stats are in the news all the time.

Be part of the solution, shift the perception of society

Don't coddle the news organizations for fear mongering.

didn't ask for a video. i'm not coddling anyone. you said that chicago shooting stats don't get airtime and i said they do.

Watch the video and it might enlighten you to how the media promotes the school shooting mentality, helps separate the youth, keep score, focus on emotional moments and have the best ratings for weeks.

If you want to be willfully ignorant, that's on you.

Maybe in Chicago, just like my city is always in the local news due to the massive amounts of shooting violence we deal with.

bro, i'm not being willfully ignorant. i already understand how the media does those things, so i don't need your youtube video to enlighten me. y'all love acting like you're the only people that are aware of these types of things and that everyone needs to be educated about it.

Dude, why are you so spastic right now?

It's ok. We are just chatting online.

It's a Charlie Brooker video which is always posted and you couldn't be bothered for a two minute video because you believe yourself to know all this. Did you even check the link before assuming I'm speaking out of my ass?

So who is attempting to act more enlightened here?

i never said you're speaking out of your ass. you just come off as pretentious when you just send some random vid to "enlighten" someone about a topic that you arbitrarily decided they are uneducated about.

sorry i don't care about your video. i'm not attempting to act enlightened. i'm glad you are aware about how manipulative the media is.

You took one word I used to make an assumption. You realize how shallow that is right?

Why don't you try explaining your point succinct and calmly, and maybe I could actually understand what point you've been trying to make.

I'm not assuming that you're uneducated, just unflappable. Which you're being in this exact moment.

If you're uninterested in the topic, why argue it?

I live in Chicago, where all of this affects me. Why do you feel the need to be rude and insult me?

I live in Chicago too, where all of this affects me. sorry you're so sensitive.

That gun violence is driven by crime, which is happening because of poverty.

Totally different than homicidal maniacs shooting up schools to be famous because nobody follows them on social media.

Why should that matter? It's still GUN violence. If guns are the issue, like everyone is screaming about on CNN, then why does the motive matter? It doesn't, except it doesn't fit the media's agenda.

The issues driving the problems are completely unrelated. One is happening because of lack of opportunity driving crime, the other is happening because of lack of regulation allowing people to get guns without any kind of background check.

A nationalized standard for gun sales needs to be implemented because the patchwork of laws at the state level are a sieve that allow psychos access to guns without any record or background checks.

The one way they are related is how they are able to get the guns. The gunshow loophole is putting just as many guns in the hands of criminals as it is psychos. We need to close the loophole and standardize gun licensing and purchasing. Then we can work on creating more opportunity in low income neighborhoods infested by crime because those people cant buy food or pay rent unless they resort to crime to attack the gun violence problem driven by crime.

Ironically, you references Black Lives Matter which came about to protest police brutality and the deaths of unnarmed civilians by police.

In the US, there are 40k gun-related deaths per year. There are 400,000 obesity-related deaths per year.

When was the last time you saw large-scale, public, organized outrage at food companies getting people addicted to sugar?

My opinion on this is simple: Guns should be owned responsibly by responsible people, and if you're not going to war you don't need a weapon designed solely for that purpose.

The 2nd amendment disagrees with you.

I shouldn't have to justify why I need a firearm.

The 2nd amendment was written during a time when it was legal to own people, things change.

So why dont we just rip the entire constitution to shreds.

Lol Because that's totally what I meant!

Nah just the parts you don't like right?

The 2nd amendment was written during a time when it was legal to own people, things change.

Yeah, and the 13th amendment changed that thing called slavery so that it was only legal inside prisons. If you want to change the 2nd amendment, amend the constitution, but until then, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The thing that I, and I'm sure a lot of us think about is>>What good is even a bunch of guns going to be worth when they send the drones and robots(and who knows what else at this point)??

I hate this argument because someone always brings it up but they never actually think it through. If it ever gets to the point of another civil war or open rebellion in the US, it won't matter what weapons the government has. They can't just nuke cities or roll tank columns through lines of civilians. That would turn the rest of the world and probably our own military against them. And at this point the American military seems to have made a habit of losing to lightly armed untrained civilians living in caves and rice fields anyway.

I've always kind of operated under the assumption that those smaller wars we've fought weren't really being run with the intention of actually winning. They sure do make lots of money and provide cover for all sorts of shady stuff tho. Advertise the new toys etc.

As appealing an idea as it is that a few lightly armed wolverines could actually do anything. I'm not sure I fully believe that's how it would play out in reality. Just about the only plausible scenario that doesn't end horribly is basically the entire populace marching in and taking over.

What makes you think this technology could not be procured by rebellion forces? You realize that most of the military has been shit on by the government and also has family in these areas that are fond of their right to bear arms right? They might be able to get a few people to drone down civilians but our military is made up of people whose family are those civilians.

Ask the Taliban.

Overemotional argument from a 4 year old account with 40 karma.

Go push your narratives elsewhere.

Sorry I don't have alot of time to contribute and things like RedPillFiend's response also deters me from openly sharing in discourse. 'Things change' should not be read as 'rip up the constitution', thats stupid. The narrative Im pushing...things change, watch out y'all Im Soros' grandson here to feminize the soyboys and indoctrinate your children with leftist cuck magic :)

Thankyou!

I know plenty of "leftists" who have no problem with guns.

It's not leftists. It's those that are brainwashed by the media.

We should avoid broad generalizations. There are people on all sides of the aisle: left, right, above, the upside down(I see you Anne Coulter), in between, whatever other preposition works...that support or oppose guns. I can support the media brainwashing conspiracy and the whole predictive programming aspect but in this case it seems more like special interest groups and lobbyists cultivating a gun culture early in a person's life like the NRA sponsored rifle club Cruz attended. It's like a perfect storm of poor parenting, lack of supervision, isolation leading to depression and access to guns regardless of countless red flags.

The 2nd amendment was written back in the 18th century, weapons have advanced considerably since then. I have no problem with having a gun for personal protection, I merely question the need for anyone to have a weapon of war in their home.

Also, we have to take a test to drive a car, operate on someone etc, because of the fatal possibility of mistakes.

But at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, the average citizen could legally own whatever weapon they wanted. They could own muskets, cannons, hell they could own a whole frigate if they wanted to and had the money. Yes, the weapons have advanced since then but it doesn't change the fact that it was intended to protect the ownership of all arms, even those on par with the strongest militaries in the world.

Cars are not constitutional rights and neither is driving.

You guys are so predictable it's funny.

I merely question the need for anyone to have a weapon of war in their home.

Why the fuck should I have to justify why I need a gun?

Could you imagine having to justify the exercising of other rights?

The 2nd amendment was written back in the 18th century,

Irrelevant. The Constitution can be amended, so if you want to amend it...do so. Until then, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

OMG "a weapon of war!"

Bet you've never even touched a gun in your life.

Back then everyone had a firearm just as powerful as the government issued arms. Now people have semi auto AR-15's and the government has near infinite power. But let's just surrender what little power we have because we're scared and need the nanny state to protect us.

If you owned a Pennsylvania rifle in 1776 you could shoot 3x the distance of the standard musket.

weapons have advanced considerably since then.

So has the Government, law enforcement and military.

Ya and I guess next you’re going to break out the well regulated militia talking point. GTFOH

It was written specifically to protect your right to own weapons of war so, if needed, people could revolt against their government.

It was also referring to cannons on privately owned ships. That's why it says arms and not guns or muskets.

The second amendment exists in part to have the ability to protect yourself from a tyrannical government. How are you going to do that with a .22?

All these same people begging for "gun control" are the same ones that say Trump and co are a fascist wannabe dictatorship.

Yet they beg for us to hand our guns over to them. Cognitive dissonance at its finest there.

Stupid

What do you do when former responsible people get old and lose their minds??

It's pathetic how I am seeing so many anti-gun comments on this sub, conspiracy, being upvoted to the top and pro-gun comments being downvoted into oblivion.

I've had this comment deleted before, so let's try it again:

For the longest time, rit and tter were having a hard time monetizing. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I wonder what changed?

...as the entire sub gets hit with waves of downvotes.

It's done by people from r/politics who spend their time shutting down speech that goes against the narrative fed to them by the corporate media.

Almost everyone of your comments in every thread you post in says the same thing over and over.

I smell a bot.

That's the same thing as calling someone a shill btw.

I disagree. Shill is just a way of ignoring anything someone says because it makes sense - that 'guys' post history is literally saying the same thing repeatedly in different ways. On every topic it posts on.

It's either a bot or someone with mental health issues, I'm not sure which

Spammer would be more accurate. Just because he repeats himself does not make him a bot.

Can we ban people for spam?

I do think spamming is against the rules so if you see what you think is spam you can report it.

r/politics doesn't ban people for posting against the popular opinion, unlike every single alt right sub. Sorry.

I thought it was funny that r/news allowed a post about a political protest outside the Whitehouse inspite of the "no politics" rule which was made to stifle discussion of protests like OWS.

So people are not allowed to have a different political opinion than you? We all have to be anti-gun control because you are?

I've noticed, atleast from my end, it appears to be a large amount of Europeans commenting and the boat load of super generic comments. Vanilla trolls.

Maybe because people are becoming more and more anti-gun in the wake of yet anther violent massacre?

Have you considered it might be the ridiculously high number of pro-gun comments following such an event that might be a bit suspicious?

Maybe because people are becoming more and more anti-gun in the wake of yet anther violent massacre?

Guns kill 40k in the US annually. 400k die annually from obesity-related illness. How come people aren't becoming more and more anti-obesity?

Might have something to do with the violent murder of children thing.

You think people aren't anti-obesity?

You realize there are tons of healthy eating campaigns, right? Some areas tax soft drinks. In my area, schools are now banned from selling soft drinks and junk food to kids when only a few years before they were putting in more vending machines filled with the stuff. Michelle Obama spent most of her time in the Whitehouse working on a healthy eating and anti-obesity campaign focused on children. There are campaigns to make school lunches healthier all over the country. There were laws passed by the previous administration that required disclosure of calorie counts in fast food and restaurants. Obesity-related illnesses are some of the top causes of death in the U.S., and there are tons of measures and campaigns seeking to address the issue.

violent mass-murder of children thing.

Mass murder... yet one of these issues results in 400,000 deaths and one results in 40,000. Children getting cardiovascular diseases, dying young after costing the US billions in healthcare costs is a thing, too.

You think people aren't anti-obesity

I don't see anyone talking about food companies, agriculture companies, and pharma, and their role in promoting obesity and the hundreds of thousands who die from it. If it happens, it's not even close to the publicity level of gun control.

You realize there are tons of healthy eating campaigns, right?

Where is the public discussion? Show me some posts from this sub and let's compare them to gun posts. Let me make a prediction to illustrate my point- I bet you've made numerous comments about gun control and participated in numerous gun control discussions on reddit- I also bet you've never been in a discussion on obesity/nutrition on reddit.

Michelle Obama spent most of her time in the Whitehouse working on a healthy eating and anti-obesity campaign focused on children.

And she was criticized and mocked for it. Not only that, many people's response to the program was to just have their kids not eat school lunches. Lastly, there have been studies claiming that the healthier lunches improved the behavior and mental functioning of the kids that ate the healthier lunches... where is the discussion on this? Where are the threads of people arguing that if behavior and mental health in children is improved by diet, then fixing nationwide dietary issues would have the side effect of reducing mental health issues and shootings as a result? Where are those discussions? Nowhere- it's all gun control.

fast food and restaurants

Awesome.. where is the discussion about these very companies who both hid the effects of sugar from consumers while knowingly adding sugar into their products

Where's the discussion on government subsidy of agriculture corps? Where's the discussion on consumers being protected from tobacco ads while food companies literally target toddlers for sugar addiction?

Obesity-related illnesses are some of the top causes of death in the U.S

Heart disease is the number on vausee of death, and it is linked to diet and obesity. Cancer is #2, and there is a growing body of data linking diet and nutrition to cancer.

Even shootings are linked to mental health, and there is a growing body of data linking mental health to diet and nutrtion.

Now, show me all this discussion. Show me the heated threads on this sub where people argue the implications of a food industry that knowingly is addicting people to its products, products which result in illness, disease and death.

The discussion exists. You want it to be more extensive? Go make it so, instead of spending your time trying to diminish what others are passionate about and seek to address in the world.

The discussion exists

And yet, it is dwarfed to the point of obscurity by discussion of something that kills 10x fewer people.

Why would I try to "make it so" when I know that it'll get ignored and buried.

Notice how none of you guys can show the discussion happening- you can only vaguely claim it exists.

That's because where ever the discussion arises, as evidenced by the few attempts that can be found with the search bar on this sub, it gets buried and ignored.

I know that if I bring it up, people will try to diminish it, as you and everyone else who replies to me has done.

I know that if I bring it up, people will try to diminish it

You're projecting a literally accusing others of doing exactly what you are doing.

I was paraphrasing your own words to demonstrate that you are a hypocrite. I'm not allowed to push the issue that concerns me (which is measurably worse and more pressing than the issue you are concerned with) and you've dismissed me bringing it up while pushing the issue that concerns you and telling me im diminishing it.

Bottom line is that nutrition and obesity is the far, far more important of the two issues, and people who choose to not acknowledge that are being willfully blind/ignorant.

Not only that, but there is a growing body of data linking poor mental health outcomes to poor diet. So by adressing the dietary issues, you will in fact reduce shootings (linkednto mental health) as a result. So not only will you address shootings, you'll also be taking action to prevent the 400k deaths that result from the greater issue.

Considering that, the fact you people are so staunchly opposed to a discussion on diet/nutrition/obesity seems to indicate you aren't actually concerned with guns or a loss of life. It looks like you just use this issue as a partisan talking point.

Mass murder... yet one of these issues results in 400,000 deaths and one results in 40,000.

Over half of those 40k gun deaths are suicides, by the way.

No, but I live in the South.

So when the antigun comments arise, actual gun owners from rural areas speak up, make idiotic Facebook posts, and get angry at all the screaming faces on their tv screen who are saying that it's the gun owners fault for being a part of a system with firearms and the direct cause if every school shooting.

pro gun in a conspiracy forum? Not really.

Why is conspiracy inherently pro or anti gun?

This sub has historically leaned more pro-gun IMO because tyrannical governments throughout history have disarmed citizens and then later heavily subjugated and imprisoned a large majority of dissenters. This sub generally views the Second Amendment and the Citizen's right to readily purchase and use firearms in order to act as a militia in the defense of the public in the case of invasion or corruption Within. I think generally the sub believes that these events are allowed to happen in different ways and institutionalized in the way this country handles Mental Health issues. There are arguments to be made about the culture of schools and the social exclusivity in the way that students with mental health issues are ostracized. Our society is mimicking the way that the State steps in and kills indiscriminately, meddling of Affairs of other countries they have conflict with. We have a culture of terrorism, so a very disenfranchised youth sees such a violent reaction in their own weird view of Justice, just as the State's reaction to conflict is to also blow away their opponent. That last part is mostly my opinion.

Historically the state also didnt have drones that can bomb the shit out of you if you uprise - no matter if you or I got a rifle or not.

So the idea of a threatening armed militia just isnt accurate anymore. The gap in arms is just far too wide.

And if we really have to stand up against tyranny I hope that the other gun owners actually know how to aim and shoot, and also know when not to shoot. All that can only be ensured with reasonable regulations. In the meantime that also helps prevent current crimes.

Oh nice same old pussy ass shit. B-b-but drones! Such a stupid talking point. Will drones be standing on street corners enforcing dusk to Dawn curfew? Will drones be going door to door arresting people?

Why not? Alternatively it can also go like this: policeman comes to arrest someone, he resist by shooting the policeman, tyrannical regime can use drone to kill that dangerous individual or bomb the house alltogether.

The point is that the gap of modern warfare is huge. Its not rifle vs rifle anymore - let alone the difference in training, skill and money.

If the military truly sides with a tyrannical regime then I dont see a realistic way how the citizen can put up a fight - do you?

Nice next phase, the government can just kill us all, why resist????

You are assuming the military sides with the government like a marvel movie, you are assuming the goal of a tyrranical government is stacking bodies.

How do you not know anything about insurgency. We've been fighting one for 17 years!

Nice next phase, the government can just kill us all, why resist???? Is this alternative scenario in your video game world?

So we are atleast on the same page about who would win in a war of militia vs military.

You are assuming the military sides with the government like a marvel movie, you are assuming the goal of a tyrranical government is stacking bodies.

If the military doesnt side with the government then we dont need the guns anyway dont we? Or have you ever felt that the gun you own did shit to keep the government in check? Me neither.

Even under stronger regulations any sane person could still own his gun, like many many other countries or even states do. In return there is less gun violence and less shootings and a lower chance that the one intruding in your house has a gun. Thats a win-win.

Are you aware of the war in Afghanistan? Were you born yet?

I'm trying to put real life examples of insurgencies into your video game world, they won't fit! Help!

Why are you trying to be a dick? Just make your argument if you want.

They can't bomb and drone us all. Gun>No Gun 100% of the time.

what makes you so sure about that? I have no doubt that the largest military of the world has no problem dealing with a country of unorganized armed militia. They certainly have the ammo and money for that.

Also its obviously about more regulation not about gun vs. no-gun. No need to push every conversation to the extremes.

What you're saying is that it's pointless to have guns since the government can instantly destroy you correct?

I'm explaining to you the importance of having a gun in that regard.

What you're saying is that it's pointless to have guns since the government can instantly destroy you correct?

The idea of having an armed militia to scare the government into behaving is outdated. However having guns isnt pointless. There are more uses that are actually realistic.

Your argument only makes sense in a gun vs no-gun debate and this isnt one. Feel free to argue against a strawman, but I wont participate in that.

Because time and time again, one regulation gets passed, and more creep in.

To boil a frog you don't drop it into boiling water, you put it in warm water and increment the heat.

As far as most of us are concerned, this is a gun vs no gun debate.

So this is a gun vs no gun debate because a possible scenario is inevitable in your mind?

The absolute majority are in favour of owning guns, but see that there is a problem that can be solved by not giving arms to everyone. And thats it.

If you argue against more then you argue against a strawman.

A gun ban isnt a regulation anymore. Thats a fucking huge step.

However I wonder: Whats your solution?

However I wonder: Whats your solution?

To what?

A seditious media that only entertains the discussion IMMEDIATELY after a shooting?

Or do you mean an inept FBI, that somehow knows about all of these shooters, are in contact with them, and still manage to fuck it up?

Or my solution to violence in general? It's not like banning some rifles is going to prevent a shooting. Does anyone think it will?

Maybe you mean my solution to the broken families that all of these kids have in common?

No you must mean my solution to the insane amount of anti-depressants and SSRI's every shooter is inevitably on.

Oh no you mean to gun violence in school... Educate kids and teachers about guns, and allow teachers to conceal carry pending a competency test. Ever notice that 99% of these things happen in districts w/o conceal carry?

My solution is to quit the petty false-dichotomy sqwabling, and take a look at the media that propagandizes and prevents honest discussion. To scrutinize the media that talks about school shootings as if the number of deaths is a video game high score. To talk about the facts around existing gun laws. These debates quickly devolve into two sides: those familiar with gun laws and statistics, and those who want more restrictions.

A seditious media that only entertains the discussion IMMEDIATELY after a shooting?

That discussion is held all the time, but obviously after such an event there will be way more discussion about it. I mean they also talk way more about school shootings in general - because its relevant u know.

Or do you mean an inept FBI, that somehow knows about all of these shooters, are in contact with them, and still manage to fuck it up?

Yeah thats a problem. What do you suggest? 24/7 surveillance when people seem suspicious?

Or my solution to violence in general? It's not like banning some rifles is going to prevent a shooting. Does anyone think it will? How did prohibition and the war on drugs turn out?

Sigh with the banning guns again. Its regulating, not banning. However even then: Regulation alcohol has worked wonders dealing with its abuse. Obviously not a straight out ban, but no one wants that anyway.

Maybe you mean my solution to the broken families that all of these kids have in common?

Not true

No you must mean my solution to the insane amount of anti-depressants and SSRI's every shooter is inevitably on.

Also not true

Oh no you mean my solution to gun violence in school... Educate kids and teachers about guns, and allow teachers to conceal carry pending a competency test. Ever notice that 99% of these things happen in districts w/o conceal carry?

Didnt the parkland school have an armed guard? However see: you also want a competency test. Thats more regulation - but reasonable one. Thats what people advocate. Give guns to people who are sane and can actually handle a gun.

My solution is to quit the petty false-dichotomy sqwabling, and take a look at the media that propagandizes and prevents honest discussion. To scrutinize the media that talks about school shootings as if the number of deaths is a video game high score. To talk about the facts around existing gun laws. These debates quickly devolve into two sides: those familiar with gun laws and statistics, and those who want more restrictions.

Since you know about gun laws and statistics: No other country has so much problems with school shootings or gun violence in general. Of course its not the only problem, but you gotta deny reality when you dont see that there is a damn high chance of a connection.

Obviously its no solution. But it helps and makes it harder for people who want to harm - whilst not adding any unreasonable restrictions to sane people.

This same talking point was pushed in various other subs when I tried to have a discussion about the second amendment.

Either there really are that many cucks that are willing to watch their loved ones get fucked instead of fighting to the death for them, or it's another shariablue talking point.

I have no doubt that the largest military of the world has no problem dealing with a country of unorganized armed militia

Holy shit are you brain dead? Have you never heard of this little War in Afghanistan that's been going on for 15+ years? This post needs a gold star, lmfao.

Why do you think it has been going on so long?

Also forgetting that the military is comprised of citizens. They aren't all going to start droning their wives and kids.

And then you have the absolutely terrible PR that droning citizens would bring. It's not like countries will sit on the sideline as a world superpower begins fighting its government.

Also forgetting that the military is comprised of citizens. They aren't all going to start droning their wives and kids.

Exactly. Military wont just turn on the citizen. However thats the only case when you would need the idea of an armed militia that can withstand a tyranniccal government.

What you say is exactly my argument. Guns have many uses. Threatening the government to stay in check isnt one of them.

Threatening the government to stay in check isnt one of them.

Why the fuck not?

Because its not possible. It made sense when everyone just had a rifle and the masses of armed citizen pose a threat just by their number. Nowadays the level of arms and ressources are so vastly apart that an unorganised armed militia wouldnt stand a realistic chance.

So in the case of a tyrannical government it comes basically down to with who military sides - wether the citizen are armed or not. And as you pointed out: unless some crazy systematic brainwashing happens I highly doubt that soldiers will be ready to gun their own down.

Have you ever experienced that your gun helps keep the government in check? Me neither.

Because its not possible. It made sense when everyone just had a rifle and the masses of armed citizen pose a threat just by their number. Nowadays the level of arms and ressources are so vastly apart that an unorganised armed militia wouldnt stand a realistic chance.

And who would the government be ruling over after they've droned everyone? No other countries got involved? The government droning every dissident didn't motivate others to take arms? This is such a stupid off-topic debate.

How about because it's the second amendment. The right of the populace to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Your point boils down to: In the case of a civil war the people don't stand a chance, so why bother?

And who would the government be ruling over after they've droned everyone? No other countries got involved? The government droning every dissident didn't motivate others to take arms?

I agree. It is so unlikely that the military turns against its own people - which means it literally doesnt matter if the citizen are armed or not.

Your point boils down to: In the case of a civil war the people don't stand a chance, so why bother?

No dude. I just told you that the idea of having guns just to keep the government in check is outdated. There are other, better and actually realistic reasons to own guns.

My point is that sick people as well as assholes should not be given guns. We all suffer from it. Yet the only ones that profit from it are sicks and assholes, not us.

Tell that to Afghanistan

Why do you think the war against afghanistan holds up until today?

So the idea of a threatening armed militia just isnt accurate anymore. The gap in arms is just far too wide.

Bullshit. Ask the Iraqis and Afghanis.

What are the similarities in your opinion?

How dare people not want nutjobs to be able to buy guns freely and shoot their children!

0/10

10/10

Oh my, hyperbole

You know what's pathetic the attempt to twist the call for sane gun regulations into "take away my guns". As a gun owner I would never support that and yet every time I call for it, that's what my comments are twitted into.

It's a straw man that they always go back to. The truth is the NRA kill the laws that the vast majority of Americans want. They killed the bump stock laws after Vegas and they are already working to kill rules that would have prevented the massacre in Florida.

And let me be clear, that was preventable. In my state, that shooter could have never walked in to a store and bought what he did. I can and have. He couldn't because my state has sane laws that the NRA is stopping us all for having. They put gun company profits ahead of our children's lives.

The thing is none of these "common sense" gun laws or gun control measures would do anything to stop these killings.

You think Las Vegas only happened because of a bump stock?

Do you think Sandy Hook would have been prevented with background checks?

"Common sense" gun control laws exist as a slippery slope. The idea is to pass these laws and then when more gun violence happens, the same group who pushed for the common sense gun control laws throw up their hands and say "Well we did X Y and Z and gun violence is still happening! I guess we didn't go far enough with gun control and have to pass even tougher restrictions!" and the cycle continues until gun ownership is banned.

An example would be AR15s. Say AR15s were banned. Then someone commits a mass shooting with a glock(like Virginia Tech). The anti-gun types will say "Well we banned AR15s and mass shootings still happened, I guess we have to ban all handguns now too".

Give an inch and they take a mile.

"Common sense" gun control laws exist as a slippery slope.

OK so when the logical fallacy of a straw man fails, you try another oldie but goodie, the slippery slope. if any regulation at all was really the end of the world, I got news for you, the cats out of the bag. I agree with conservative Justice Antonin Scalia on this one:

"There Are Undoubtedly Limits To A Person’s Right To Carry Guns"

Look at California and tell me that it's not a slippery slope. Just because we point out that it is one doesn't mean you can magic it away. Slippery slopes do exist, people just tend to use that argument without any basis. California is plenty of basis, they just keep on slipping.

Also, context matters with quotes. Scalia was talking about Assault Rifles, which have a technical description (Select Fire, magazine fed rifle) and are already heavily regulated as well as heavy explosives which the same applies to.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Semi-Automatic rifles are definitely "in common use at the time" and have been for more than a century, so that quote is pointless in the current topic.

Don't be surprise when they strip you of your rights to bear arms.

Slippery slope is not a logical fallacy.

that shooter could have never walked in to a store and bought what he did

He was reported to self harm by the police. That alone is reason in Florida for involuntary admittance a psych ward. Involuntary admission is grounds for denial on a form 4473. FBI also received more than one tip about this guy, and they didn't look into it at all. It's not the gun's fault, it's the police and FBI's fault for dropping the ball and not doing their damn job. What good are more laws if we don't enforce the ones we already have?

that shooter could have never walked in to a store and bought what he did

This is also assuming the shooter wouldn't just buy the gun on the black market.

If only the entire US could be as safe as the gun-free cities of Detroit, Chicago, and DC!

Exactly the point, no? You have to ban all guns in the entire country if you want reduction in gun deaths. And then, once you factor in the ~50% of annual shootings being gang related, you realize you didn’t actually fix anything.

Yup, we're in agreement. My original reply may have been misleading.

I figured your comment about DC was sarcasm, you’re all good lol

What’s it distracting from?

Yeah, the cause of the shootings are a combination of brainwashing and other elements in culture, not the guns themselves. People should be able to see through the psyops already!

can't tell if sarcastic.

Society is broken from cronie capitalism

Like the cronie capitalism used by the NRA to keep gun manfacturer's business booming?

Alot of people don't understand how the NRA works. The NRA is a group of citizens putting their money, and votes together to ensure that their interests are represented in politics. Anti-gunners do the same thing.

The NRA is also funded by gun manufacturers to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

Gun manufactures want to keep guns legal. Must be some sort of conspiracy to stay in business.

Gun manufacturers spend millions to ensure they make billions. They've bought the Republican party so fully that this country can't pass common sense gun laws that would keep assault rifles out of the hands of terrorists, criminals and crazy people.

"common sense gun laws" as coined by Obama. What are these "common sense" laws you are referring to?

Ban private sales, and implement background checks on all firearm transfers.

Those are the common sense ones. Personally, I think there should be a national firearm registry, which would all but eliminate guns ending up in the hands of criminals. You have to register your car, but the arsenal in your basement? I think that's crazy.

Guns are registered and it is also illegal to remove your serial number so we kind of already have that. Also private sales are attacked because they don't require an FFL but they really aren't a problem that has been a proven method for mass shooter to skirt the law. So while you don't like the idea, in reality it wouldn't really make a difference.

Also you are well within your rights to keep all the unregistered cars you want in your basement. That is a pretty terrible analogy. You only have to register your car to drive on the road. You DO NOT have to register your car at the point of purchase or ever if you drive it on private property.

Guns are registered and it is also illegal to remove your serial number so we kind of already have that.

It is currently illegal for the federal government or any state governments to keep any kind of registry that ties a gun to its owner.

So while you don't like the idea, in reality it wouldn't really make a difference.

A national registry would all but eliminate criminals getting their hands on guns. It would literally make all the difference.

It is currently illegal for the federal government or any state governments to keep any kind of registry that ties a gun to its owner.

Well hell that is good to know. I wonder why the FFL writes down the serial number on the form I filled out before purchasing my lower. I can rest easy knowing if there is a gun grab the is no list anywhere saying I have one.

TBH I thought they did take that serial number and register it to you. I also thought the only way you could get around this is by making your own firearm.

You're way off base dude. You act like there isn't a huge block of voters who make guns their sole issue. The Republican party would be in full favor of gun control if their voters supported it. People can have different opinions, and it doesn't mean they have some weird ulterior motive.

You act like there isn't a huge block of voters who make guns their sole issue

66% of Americans believe gun laws should be more strict.

The Republican party would be in full favor of gun control if their voters supported it.

Many Republicans do. 50% of gun owners support tougher laws, and 98% of Americans support universal background checks, but the Republicans and the NRA fight that tooth and nail.

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries./lobbying.php?cycle=2018&ind=Q13

The entire gun rights lobby spent 10 million in 2017 and has 26 total lobbyists who are revolvers (cronies).

Should we compare that to the food industry? Agriculture? Pharmaceuticals? Healthcare?

Cause there's an industry that kills more than 400,000 people annually, vs the 40k gun deaths that occur per year in the US.

Let me know if you want to crunch the numbers on the real killers and the real crony capitalists who control our government. Let me know when you're read to really, honestly look at the numbers. Until then, you keep ranting about the NRA

A bomb has a greater "barrier to entry," essentially takes more effort. Of course some will still have the drive to go through with it anyways, but those who have less may do so only if there's an "easy" option which guns provide to a greater degree. As gun-rights advocates keep telling me there will always be evil people, so it's better to push them toward either less dangerous tools or more complicated tools. It's all about minimizing damage, not eliminating it.

If people instead resort to knives there's less potential for harm as they're unable to kill as many as quickly. For instance, the same day Sandy Hook took place a guy broke into an elementary school in China but rather than having a gun like the sandy hook killer, he only had a knife. Instead of 20 dead kids there were 23 injured kids who all survived.

Cars are dangerous as well as accessible but they're so important for everyday use (unlike guns) that it doesn't make sense making it harder for people to obtain them.

I don't want to take away your gun and I think we should take measures to improve mental health and impede big pharma but it makes sense for there to also be more intensive background checks, gun training requirements, maybe evaluative interviews before you're allowed to own such a deadly tool.

I think these fucks want to kill people directly, I doubt they'd turn to poison.

And there's a reason they switched...

Why are you Americans so in love with you your guns? It's crazy. And to say the problems are capitalism, and Pharma, and ONLY those two things is observed. You guys have MANY problems - incredibly easy access to guns is most definitely one of them.

If you aren’t an American why are you worried about it?

Why nit spend time and effort dealing with stuff in your own country?

...because I travel to America quite a bit? I'd like to visit without being shot with a machine gun lol

When visiting America...

Have you ever been shot with a “machine gun”?

Have you ever been shot at with a “machine gun”?

Have you ever seen somebody shooting a “machine gun”?

Have you ever seen somebody holding a “machine gun”?

Have you ever seen a “machine gun”?

Have you ever been near a “machine gun”?

Have any of these situations ever occurred while you were visiting America?

No the media showed some scary black rifles and now he is scared.

City people don't understand what it's like to live in a rural area. If shit goes down, the sheriff is 30 minutes away or more. You might not need a gun, but you can't say that nobody does.

Both of those firearms are restricted in Canada and could not have been brought legally on a hike, especially not in any national park where all firearms are banned. The penalty for hiking around with either of those would have been a loss of your license and criminal charges.

That's because OP probably doesn't go outside. Let alone hiking around Canada.

Then you can provide us with the police record, can you?

You can do so just now.

So when did it happen?

Isn't it illegal, too, to shoot children at a public school in the state of Florida?

Nobody with an RPAL would ever bring those guns hiking in Canada and risk losing their license, guns, and face criminal charges when they could just use a non-restricted rifle instead.

Fucking leafs.

He could have walked around with a Tavor or SKS all he wanted, just not those.

I think I already posted it further below: But I rarely see anyone advocate banning guns. So why do people argue against that argument?

More regulations target the ones that shouldnt have a gun - not the ones that dont abuse their gun anyway.

Numerous prominent Democrats have openly stated they want to ban guns, what are you talking about??

Not a single fuckin democrat with an actual political position has called for the ban of all firearms.

Diane feinstein wants to ban all handguns, she doesn't have an actual political position? She's one of the most powerful democrat senators

Is that a total ban on guns, or a subset of firearms. Many people have been calling for a ban on AR-15 style weapons for years. Hell, president Reagan was one of them.

Handguns aren't just a subset, there are more privately owned handguns than any other type of gun

? Doesn't make them not just a section of firearms. The original comment was worded to make people believe they had called for a ban on all firearms.

Try again buddy: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eNBfx7zPegA

Who?

But that doesnt even matter. The vast majority calls for more regulation not more for a total ban. Get real.

3d printing guns is a thing already

Gun control is not gun abolition. The truth is its harder to buy a porn magazine in some states than it is to buy a gun.

That's a lie

Point out someone saying we should ban all guns.

The truth is its harder to buy a porn magazine in some states than it is to buy a gun.

prove this point.

Go read Louisiana’s Obscenity stature from the 1960s requiring ID to be shown to buy porn. They also have some of the laxest gun laws in the nation with no ID or records required for private gun sales.

We have to go through a far more arduous process just to drive.

private gun sales

I bet no one checks ID if they do private porn sales either. The truth is buying a gun is not as easy as people like you claim, and the fact that you have to quote 1960s obscenity laws to try to prove your point makes it obvious you have no idea how difficult buying a gun can actually be. Also last I checked gun ownership is a right buying porn isn't.

It varies by state. Louisiana has little to no regulation on gun sales. California is the complete opposite. The same problem remains: lack of federal standards for gun buying and licensing.

The only thing progressive about Louisiana is their gun and oil/gas exploration laws. Voting, driving and jerking off have more regulation at the state level than gun sales.

But buying a gun is as easy as I claim.

I can walk into any gun show and purchase a gun without any legal requirement to record that sale. In fact, 80% of ATF's budget is used on putting plainclothes officers at gun shows. The private purchase/gun show loop hole is a very real thing.

here is one of many https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/7z1kd1/florida_house_aide_fired_after_claiming_florida/dul9en7/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

That has nothing to do with the discussion. Some Republican aid getting fired for claiming kids who survived a shooting are crisis actors is just a deflection. Pointing to a comment in a message board doesnt mean squat.

No it's not. 37 states allow private sales, where you can buy an AR-15 without even having to give your name. But you have to show ID if you look young and want to buy some porn.

You act like lying about your age on the internet isn't a thing. Or second hand porn for that matter.

No, I'm acting like 37 states it's easier to buy a gun than porn.

I was in favor of stricter gun regulation - then a friend showed me the actual application to purchase a weapon. If you haven't read it, go find and read what it asks.

It specifically asked for the areas of my concern: mental illness, domestic violence, felony. The problem truly ISN'T more regulation. We obviously need to enforce our current regulation, and do our due diligence in tracing those who buy guns in stores.

Unfortunately there's no way to trace guns sold on the open market, either. Government can outlaw it 'til the cows come home and it'll still happen.

It's almost as if people can lie on an application

You just give them the right answers and as long as you don't have any federal convictions you walk out with your gun 15 min later.

Not every state, many have a waiting period.

10 states to be exact.

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-sales/waiting-periods/#state

More than I thought actually, thanks.

This is incorrect

What is incorrect?

However, if you get caught lying that's a pretty hefty felony.

True but a criminal record is the only thing that will really get flagged.

Involuntary admission to mental health facilities and mmm cards in some states do as well. But as a general rule, yes there needs to be documented crime first.

The FBI does the background checks and apparently can't do anything well at this point.

What about school shooters who get a hold of their parents guns ?

Is it like that in all or atleast the majority of states? Because if not then obviously thats the first thing to do to be able to enforce anything.

Also things like registering firearms should be basic stuff, really.

It's like 2 pages and can be done in like 30 mins aside from the waiting period.

Unfortunately for those people we have a bill of rights that our genius fore fathers created that doesnt allow the government to stop our right to bear arms.

We live in a rural setting in the Rocky Mountains. There are things outside that want to kill you and eat you and bite you, etc. I'll be damned if I don't go out there without a pistol in my pocket cause I don't want to be dinner for some wild creature.

Give up your guns America. Then the government can relax about potential revolution/social disorder and focus on more important things like working with corporations on how to make more money from citizens.

They want a guy they accuse of being a Nazi to take their guns/rights away. The jokes write themselves now.

Really? I haven't seen a single post advocating that the government "take away people's guns." The most "extreme" proposition I've seen floated is a ban on assault weapons, which still wouldn't take away people's gun because it would simply stop them from being manufactured. You could still keep your old assault weapons and sell them, just you can currently do with pre-ban fully automatic weapons. But they're wouldn't be any new such weapons on the market.

It’s crazy to look back on Columbine and realize how much of a ripple effect that event had. Truly one of the most pivotal events in American history.

They will never take away our guns. Or it’ll be full on civil war.

You’d join me, right?

Strength in courage and numbers

Stupid

Both of those firearms are restricted in Canada and could not have been brought legally on a hike, especially not in any national park where all firearms are banned. The penalty for hiking around with either of those would have been a loss of your license and criminal charges.

Nobody with an RPAL would ever bring those guns hiking in Canada and risk losing their license, guns, and face criminal charges when they could just use a non-restricted rifle instead.

He could have walked around with a Tavor or SKS all he wanted, just not those.

Dude, why are you so spastic right now?

It's ok. We are just chatting online.

It's a Charlie Brooker video which is always posted and you couldn't be bothered for a two minute video because you believe yourself to know all this. Did you even check the link before assuming I'm speaking out of my ass?

So who is attempting to act more enlightened here?

i never said you're speaking out of your ass. you just come off as pretentious when you just send some random vid to "enlighten" someone about a topic that you arbitrarily decided they are uneducated about.

sorry i don't care about your video. i'm not attempting to act enlightened. i'm glad you are aware about how manipulative the media is.

What you're saying is that it's pointless to have guns since the government can instantly destroy you correct?

The idea of having an armed militia to scare the government into behaving is outdated. However having guns isnt pointless. There are more uses that are actually realistic.

Your argument only makes sense in a gun vs no-gun debate and this isnt one. Feel free to argue against a strawman, but I wont participate in that.

You’d join me, right?

I've had this comment deleted before, so let's try it again:

For the longest time, rit and tter were having a hard time monetizing. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I wonder what changed?

...as the entire sub gets hit with waves of downvotes.

A seditious media that only entertains the discussion IMMEDIATELY after a shooting?

That discussion is held all the time, but obviously after such an event there will be way more discussion about it. I mean they also talk way more about school shootings in general - because its relevant u know.

Or do you mean an inept FBI, that somehow knows about all of these shooters, are in contact with them, and still manage to fuck it up?

Yeah thats a problem. What do you suggest? 24/7 surveillance when people seem suspicious?

Or my solution to violence in general? It's not like banning some rifles is going to prevent a shooting. Does anyone think it will? How did prohibition and the war on drugs turn out?

Sigh with the banning guns again. Its regulating, not banning. However even then: Regulation alcohol has worked wonders dealing with its abuse. Obviously not a straight out ban, but no one wants that anyway.

Maybe you mean my solution to the broken families that all of these kids have in common?

Not true

No you must mean my solution to the insane amount of anti-depressants and SSRI's every shooter is inevitably on.

Also not true

Oh no you mean my solution to gun violence in school... Educate kids and teachers about guns, and allow teachers to conceal carry pending a competency test. Ever notice that 99% of these things happen in districts w/o conceal carry?

Didnt the parkland school have an armed guard? However see: you also want a competency test. Thats more regulation - but reasonable one. Thats what people advocate. Give guns to people who are sane and can actually handle a gun.

My solution is to quit the petty false-dichotomy sqwabling, and take a look at the media that propagandizes and prevents honest discussion. To scrutinize the media that talks about school shootings as if the number of deaths is a video game high score. To talk about the facts around existing gun laws. These debates quickly devolve into two sides: those familiar with gun laws and statistics, and those who want more restrictions.

Since you know about gun laws and statistics: No other country has so much problems with school shootings or gun violence in general. Of course its not the only problem, but you gotta deny reality when you dont see that there is a damn high chance of a connection.

Obviously its no solution. But it helps and makes it harder for people who want to harm - whilst not adding any unreasonable restrictions to sane people.

This same talking point was pushed in various other subs when I tried to have a discussion about the second amendment.

Either there really are that many cucks that are willing to watch their loved ones get fucked instead of fighting to the death for them, or it's another shariablue talking point.

Then you can provide us with the police record, can you?