‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

I am aware this is satire. But this line is a direct quote from so many people, with a completely straight dace

There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this individual from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what they really wanted

“But they could use a knife or a bat or a car!”

Without seeing the fact that having such free access to “tools” designed for the sole purpose of killing many people in as little time as possible.

Anyone against gun control is completely smooth brained. Anyone who complains about gun control, that the government shouldn’t control and regulate access, that they need multiple guns for “self defence” should not be allowed access to any gun.

Another common one is

“buh only criminals will have guns”,

except that never happens in any other developed nation.

Its for self defense

Sure. From other people with guns. And not a single shooting has been stopped by “good guy with gun™️”.

/rant

The second amendment is nominally there to allow people to form state militias in case the United States get invaded. With that in mind (and ignoring the many ways in which this kind of militia is completely irrelevant for defense purposes these days) we can come up with a reasonable compromise.
Anyone is allowed to own any gun they want. Access to ammunition is strictly regulated; only the state and shooting ranges are allowed to own ammo at all and the latter are under very strict supervision. Unlawful possession of ammunition is a felony.
In case the US Army is overrun each state will conscript all gun owners and issue them ammunition from the stockpile so they can go out and engage any enemy forces susceptible to infantry attack.
I'm sure all fans of the second amendment are going to love this plan. /s
- That’s pretty much the setup that early colonists had, and it makes a lot of sense.
  Ammo and muskets were kept in an armory, cuz it was dangerous to have powder laying around your candlelit home and muskets required frequent maintenance by skilled craftsmen.
  Firearms were also somewhat collectively-owned, because they were primarily a means of collective defense.
  Think about it: You’ve got the British in the ocean to the East, rival colonies to the North and South, indigenous tribes to the West, and the ever-present possibility of a mob of outlaws literally taking over your town.
  It’s a very different world, and a very different relationship to weaponry.
- btw. i believe this is somewhat similar to how Switzerland handles assault rifles nowadays. There are situations where you are allowed to have an assault rifle at home or even carry it in public but the ammo has to be locked away at a central storage that is guarded. They can very quickly hand out the ammo to the holders if necessary, i.e. for training on the shooting range. I am not Swiss so this is only hearsay though.
- The second amendment is nominally there to allow people to form state militias in case the United States get invaded.
  I want to add to this, because it's never mentioned.
  As with most problems in the world (prove me wrong), it can be traced back to British colonialism. The British usually disarmed everyone in their colonies, but American colonists were allowed to have guns and form militias because they were actively forcing Natives off their land.
  Basically everyone had guns or access to them, and every colony had militias. Without them, there's no chance the colonists could have then taken on the strongest empire in the world.
  So now the line is that we need guns to fight tyranny, or whatever.
  But... We did that. We won. We have a "democracy" now. We rounded up or killed all the Natives and fulfilled our Manifest Destiny™️. We have the most powerful military in the fucking visible universe.
  Does my dumbass alcoholic neighbor Randy really need an AR to fight the gubmint?
Not a single shooting has been stopped by a good guy with a gun? Here's some light reading for you.
Texas Shooting
Las Vegas
Bystanders Stop Shooters
Oh look, another article
Indiana shooter stopped by civilian
Video proof courtesy of CNN
Snopes article
Why would you make a claim that us so easily debunked? What purpose did that serve?
- I feel like there's some room to explore how many needless deaths have occurred the the hands of overzealous gun owners. I'll be honest, I don't know the statistics on "rightful" and "wrongful" executions.
  There's at least two side to every argument, focusing on one side in any argument will only allow you to prove your own point.
- Over 500 mass shootings. And that's this year alone.
  So yah, EXTREMELY light reading bro.
The quote I've heard most often:
No law (sometimes: piece of paper) is going to stop a criminal from committing a crime.
- Truly one of the dumbest takes of all time. If laws weren't at least somewhat effective, there would be no point in having laws.
- A 1km ball of enriched uranium has never committed murder, either. Should I drop one by your pillow at night?
Not entirely true. There was that guy in Colorado who drew his weapon, and took out an active shooter. Then the police rolled in, mistook him for the threat, and promptly killed him. Yay, armed society! /s
Sad watching people like you type out a bunch of nonsense as though it's true.
I guess that's why people like you are so 'up in arms' about gun control; you're living in a fantasy world where you think that criminals don't have guns in other developed nations.
- The guy who killed Shinzo Abe in Japan literally had to build the gun and was only able to do so efficiently because he was an ex-member of the JMSDF.
  That’s how hard it is to get a gun in Japan. And surprise! They have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.

I hope the writer for this article makes residuals. They're getting a lot of use out of it

They do actually rewrite it slightly each time they repost it, even though the title is the same
- They just change the date, city, number of victims, and then change the fake person's name for the quote. The rest stays exactly the same.
It would be darkly funny if they had an “____ Days Since We Had to Repost This” counter for it.
- It will be stuck at 0

He was committed to a mental health facility for two weeks in the summer of 2023. He's talked about hearing voices. He's threatened to shoot up a National Guard station. He and his associates are well-known local right-wing militia gun nuts that "people knew to stay away from." None of that was sufficient to restrict his access to firearms.
I don't even really care about guns. I don't like them and wish there were far fewer of them, but if reducing the number and availability of guns is off the table, there's still plenty of room to work -- and if this political conversation had even one shred of honesty, we'd be working even with that constraint.
Even in gun policy, there's so much reform we could make to reduce danger that doesn't impact someone's ability to own a gun. For example, universal registration, repeal the Dickey amendment and fund research, impose strict liability to gun owners for crimes committed with their guns.
And most people seem to support red flag laws and universal background checks, but for some reason we can't expand those either?
Not to mention that it is a simple matter of fact that the US can and does ban all kinds of arms. And, aside from a tiny lunatic fringe, no one really thinks it is an issue. You can't just have and bring with you a fighter jet, a tank. You can't open carry explosive ordinance. You can't go to a gun show and buy chemical WMDs or bio-weapons. You can't drive around with a full machine gun mounted to the flatbed of your 3-ton pickup. We have rules that are uncontentious, and the idea that maybe some types of modern guns should be in the same category is fiddling with a line in the sand.
And guns are only a small part of the picture. We need poverty intervention and social welfare. We need consent-based policing and the better training that comes with it. We need to fix our urban design so people have better third places and are less isolated from one another. Yet if you try to do anything like this, the same people that fetishize guns will absolutely refuse to even think about it and will indeed try to roll back what does exist to make the problems worse.
At the end, it's a very two-sided debate. One side wants to test and try changes to make things maybe even just a bit better. The other refuses to do anything and would like for it to even be a bit worse.
"if only Americans were smarter" we can just leave it at that. This fucking country is full of idiots who will never do any good in this world because they're too stupid to even know where to start

Wait, did it happen again?

Last night, Lewiston ME.
- old news, there's been another in Samson County, NC today.
Yeah, yesterday unfortunately.
- Shit... Sorry guys, don't know what to say..

"We did nothing and we are all out of options!"

Comparing it to cars just makes it even more obvious. You need a license to drive one. If your eyesight is too bad, they won't let you drivr. Your doctor can advise against you driving for many reasons and your license gets revoked.
- Also you need insurance which I think would be great for any gun owner anywhere.
Honestly in this last one I think the proper authorities really dropped the ball. As soon as this guy went into a mental facility he should have been flagged for having guns and steps should have been taken to restrict his access to them. You're using a very broad brush to paint all gun owners one way when it's absolutely not the case. Some people take self defense extremely seriously. Look out at human history. Look out at the natural world. Killing is a serious constant in life. If you want to see what people are capable of when one group of people have guns and another doesn't, look at Israel v Gaza. Look at slavery. Small groups of people can control large groups of people solely for having guns. So coming back to self defense, the gun is the greatest equalizer, unfortunately. I believe in having smart, efficient, and effective gun laws, but at the end of the day I only put 100% faith in myself for protecting myself.
I think everyone I've talked to who carries a gun hopes to never have to use it in a life or death situation. I love guns and hate people who use them to kill.
- The passive voice in the second sentence is very telling. Who should have flagged him? Who should have taken steps to restrict his access to guns? Who had access to that information in order to put the pieces of the puzzle together, and take action? Our society and government doesn’t have a proactive mechanism to so. It is explicitly not the duty of the police. Our system is reactive; some private citizen could have petitioned a court of law, but who has the time, money, and interest to do it?