5 ms·

Why do efforts to reform U.S. firearm sales always fail after mass shootings?

10 points by Austin_Conlon 4y ago

dylanhassinger 4y ago
- tamaharbor 4y ago
  And those who believe in the Constitution.
  - dylanhassinger 4y ago
    If unlimited firearms was what the founders wanted, I think they would have said so. they didn't
    - jleyank 4y ago
      They didn’t want a standing army, hence “the well-regulated militia”. Standing armies were instruments of tyranny in Europe. But they did realize the need to defend against others, especially having just fought a revolution. And note the correlation of shooter skin colour to health.
  - sys_64738 4y ago
    What type of guns did they have back then?
    - erik_seaberg 4y ago
      The same kinds their rivals had. There were privately owned cannon, and warships. We don’t limit freedom of the press to 18th century technology either.
- dylanhassinger 4y ago
  Don't see why i was down-voted, my statement was objective facts. Republicans consistently block firearm safety bills. Democrats are the only party working to change the status quo where 2nd-graders get mass murdered on a regular basis
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - giantg2 4y ago
    With the current balance of power in congress, wouldn't that also require some democrats for it to be true (Manchin)? I would guess you were downvoted for a low effort comment that is viewed as political and possibly trolling. It would be much more interesting to dive into why people don't support the bills.
codefreeordie 4y ago
The reason that people don't support bans on guns isn't that they don't think mass shootings might happen, so mass shootings happening don't change their opinion on whether guns should be banned. A mass shooting happening doesn't really change anybody's calculus. The people who want to ban guns have wanted to ban guns well before [latest event], and the people who don't aren't persuaded by [latest event]. [latest event], however tragic, is rarely materially different from what has come before.
- jfengel 4y ago
  I think Sandy Hook was materially different, but insufficiently so to change the fundamental calculus. And with that as a fait accompli, there's not a lot of room left for anything that could change it.
rootusrootus 4y ago
The US has a large subset of the population who strongly believe that civilian gun ownership is an effective deterrent to government tyranny. Whether this is true in fact is irrelevant, the perception is what matters. These people are not ever going to be convinced by body count, because their highest ideal is the idea of liberty.
- dylanhassinger 4y ago
  Alternate view, they actually just like violence. Their highest ideal is being a threat to people who disagree with them (or children)
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    That is plausible. It can definitely be argued that the segment of the population most vocally in favor the second amendment are the same people most likely to be pro-law enforcement, which reduces the credibility of the tyranny argument.
    - Darrengineer 4y ago
      I typically see pro-law enforcement as being compatible with anti-tyranny argument, both in people I know and logically. Most police are able to function relatively independently from actual government control. There's often wide discretion on how police enforce (or don't) laws, and my understanding of the law is that police have no obligation to protect people from crimes at all, if they so choose. Similarly, people commonly 'support the troops' yet distrust 'the government' entirely. It's a bizarre duality (to me) but very common.
      - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        Taking their position at face value: If I'm in favor of freedom, then I'm in favor of the military, to keep us free from foreign domination. I'm in favor of the police, because in practical terms I'm more free if I don't have to worry about being robbed on the street or murdered in my home. And I'm in favor of private gun ownership, so that the citizens can put up a fight against the government if the government ever descends into tyranny. Note well: In this post, I am not saying that such a position is right, or even sane - merely that it's consistent.
no-dr-onboard 4y ago
A persistent and significant portion of the nation believes that firearms are an integral defense against tyranny and promised right from the constitutional amendments.
krapp 4y ago
Oh look, a gun thread. There must have been another mass shooting in the US. Let's all spend some time together and learn once again why gun violence in the US isn't a problem, it's a solution, and the problem is liberals and leftists wanting to take away people's guns.
GoGo415 4y ago
- tjpnz 4y ago
  How do you make that work when in most cases there are no obvious warning signs? Mental health can be a fragile thing, how do you know that your "responsible" gun owner won't go on to commit a mass shooting next year or the year after that?
  - GoGo415 4y ago

10 points by Austin_Conlon 4y ago

tamaharbor 4y ago
And those who believe in the Constitution.
- dylanhassinger 4y ago
  If unlimited firearms was what the founders wanted, I think they would have said so. they didn't
  - jleyank 4y ago
    They didn’t want a standing army, hence “the well-regulated militia”. Standing armies were instruments of tyranny in Europe. But they did realize the need to defend against others, especially having just fought a revolution. And note the correlation of shooter skin colour to health.
- sys_64738 4y ago
  What type of guns did they have back then?
  - erik_seaberg 4y ago
    The same kinds their rivals had. There were privately owned cannon, and warships. We don’t limit freedom of the press to 18th century technology either.
dylanhassinger 4y ago
Don't see why i was down-voted, my statement was objective facts. Republicans consistently block firearm safety bills. Democrats are the only party working to change the status quo where 2nd-graders get mass murdered on a regular basis
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- giantg2 4y ago
  With the current balance of power in congress, wouldn't that also require some democrats for it to be true (Manchin)? I would guess you were downvoted for a low effort comment that is viewed as political and possibly trolling. It would be much more interesting to dive into why people don't support the bills.

The reason that people don't support bans on guns isn't that they don't think mass shootings might happen, so mass shootings happening don't change their opinion on whether guns should be banned. A mass shooting happening doesn't really change anybody's calculus. The people who want to ban guns have wanted to ban guns well before [latest event], and the people who don't aren't persuaded by [latest event]. [latest event], however tragic, is rarely materially different from what has come before.

jfengel 4y ago
I think Sandy Hook was materially different, but insufficiently so to change the fundamental calculus. And with that as a fait accompli, there's not a lot of room left for anything that could change it.

rootusrootus 4y ago

The US has a large subset of the population who strongly believe that civilian gun ownership is an effective deterrent to government tyranny. Whether this is true in fact is irrelevant, the perception is what matters. These people are not ever going to be convinced by body count, because their highest ideal is the idea of liberty.

dylanhassinger 4y ago
Alternate view, they actually just like violence. Their highest ideal is being a threat to people who disagree with them (or children)
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  That is plausible. It can definitely be argued that the segment of the population most vocally in favor the second amendment are the same people most likely to be pro-law enforcement, which reduces the credibility of the tyranny argument.
  - Darrengineer 4y ago
    I typically see pro-law enforcement as being compatible with anti-tyranny argument, both in people I know and logically. Most police are able to function relatively independently from actual government control. There's often wide discretion on how police enforce (or don't) laws, and my understanding of the law is that police have no obligation to protect people from crimes at all, if they so choose. Similarly, people commonly 'support the troops' yet distrust 'the government' entirely. It's a bizarre duality (to me) but very common.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      Taking their position at face value: If I'm in favor of freedom, then I'm in favor of the military, to keep us free from foreign domination. I'm in favor of the police, because in practical terms I'm more free if I don't have to worry about being robbed on the street or murdered in my home. And I'm in favor of private gun ownership, so that the citizens can put up a fight against the government if the government ever descends into tyranny. Note well: In this post, I am not saying that such a position is right, or even sane - merely that it's consistent.

no-dr-onboard 4y ago

A persistent and significant portion of the nation believes that firearms are an integral defense against tyranny and promised right from the constitutional amendments.

krapp 4y ago

Oh look, a gun thread. There must have been another mass shooting in the US. Let's all spend some time together and learn once again why gun violence in the US isn't a problem, it's a solution, and the problem is liberals and leftists wanting to take away people's guns.

GoGo415 4y ago

tjpnz 4y ago
How do you make that work when in most cases there are no obvious warning signs? Mental health can be a fragile thing, how do you know that your "responsible" gun owner won't go on to commit a mass shooting next year or the year after that?
- GoGo415 4y ago