Of those people that were protected, how many were protected from other people with guns? It’s just an arms race basically. Sure everyone needs guns for protection, because everyone has guns. Funny how all the countries with low gun ownership don’t have rampant murders.

There was a time when high school aged kids, especially more rural area’s, would have a rifle in the vehicle they went to school in, and would go hunting after. The rate of school shootings was extremely low and rare. So - I ask: What changed?

We’ve had machine guns accessible to people since the 1920’s, we’ve had the know how to make guns with supplies from a hardware store since like the Irish Revolution. So it’s not an accessibility issue.

Wealth Disparity, More parents with multiple jobs, commodification of housing, gentrification of neighbourhoods. That all started happening in and around the 1960’s really. Beyond this - leaded gasoline, given lead poisoning and exposure to such has been linked to lower empathy. And then there is my favorite: This cultural shift to seemingly rejecting personal responsibility - and why? how? The answer is how we are educated. What we are taught. And as a society - we voted for these changes, either purposefully or through complacency.

I’m not saying you should be allowed to go out and buy a minigun and all the ammo. What I am saying is that guns aren’t the problem - it’s the cultural back drop that is being ignored. The changes between then and now that have been demonstrably negative. And yet - the negative parts aren’t being discussed or dealt with because ultimately those in power, lacking empathy for the average person, profit from this entire situation.

It’s time we as a society tell the capitalists to shut up until basic needs are covered (food, shelter) - and tell the socialists to shut up because the USSR is a failed state. And tell the Corrupt unions to rethink their priorities. And Finally - it’s time for a new labour movement.

You know what got labour laws passed and happening in the US? Guns. So bad was the violence against labour movements that the labour movements started showing up armed and being willing to shoot first and ask questions later to the point that the government HAD to act, HAD to listen because the economy was being threatened. The reason strikes work is ultimately because it threatens companies economic viability, and it’s why we need anti-scab legislation.

It turns out that mixed-market economics is the way to go. And somehow, even back in the day - under a different format, even Adam Smith had some understanding of this. After all: The church was responsible for the charity work, and it was a MANDATE BY GOD to give like 10% of your earnings to the church. Of course - the Catholic Church is well known for hording wealth and trying to keep knowledge as the exclusive domain of the church but, well… things went sideways, the church stopped, greedy people took over and no one stepped in to fix the situation leading to toxic environments during the industrial revolution that were exploitative. And this is why we need legislation to protect against this.

UBI is an inevitability sooner or later - and it can act as a general replacement for the payouts of welfare, old age, and so much more. Sure, we need social assistance programs, but imagine how many people out their would be happy to take UBI, Work part time, and commit 10-20 hours a week just helping other people: I know many of them. But under the current environment - it doesn’t happen, and so our elderly get neglected, those down on their luck get ignored, and it’s a struggle.

We as a Society need to do better.

And doing better fixes the vast majority of crime - including gun crime.

TL;DR: Guns aren’t really the issue. The issue is the societal back drop that has changed arguably for the worse do to creating higher degrees of wealth disparity, and a greater degree of poverty which is directly linked with increased crime.

Hopefully the FBI is on the case

The FBI being on the case means that they mastermind a plot, fund it, arm it, and get a few suckers to agree to it, then put those people in jail forever. Just because the right hates them now too doesn’t mean they stopped being motherfuckers. I stand with MTG: defund the FBI!

Do you really think the gun manufacturers need to troll an overall meaningless social network, posting misinformation on some random-ass meme to push their agenda?

Not really how modern astro-turfing works (its far too easy to catch). Instead, talking points are seeded and signal boosted in key communities, then left to spread organically from there.

You’re welcome to believe that an industry that makes tools to kill people, that donates $16 million each year to Republicians and spends even more on legal challenges, would never stoop to the kind of sleazy tricks used by oil and tobacco industries, or companies like Microsoft and Apple, or governments like Israel’s and China’s.

Personally, that sounds pretty naive to me.

So why did “guns are awesome for women and the gays” suddenly become the favourite take of pro-gun groups? It definitely didn’t follow a high profile event where a minority defended themselves with a gun, because there hasn’t been any.

The only minority group that benefits from permissive gun laws is white supremacists.

Red flag laws to prevent nutbags from owning assault rifles isn’t ‘a gun ban’. No one’s treading on you sweetie. No one step on snek.

You just feel so persecuted someone might DARE to regulate your fetish it gets you all worked up.

the fact that dems have to spout garbage about gun bans every time they open their mouths.

Got any solid examples as of late?

No, they don’t. You’re either lying or massively exaggerating.

Banning the sale of military-style assault weapons is exactly the same thing as taking your guns away.

Banning assault weapon sales is not the same thing. I’m frankly amazed you can get this worked up about a subject you obviously have entirely misinterpreted - there’s only one use case for the ‘dems are taking your guns’ and that’s stoking fearmongering conservatives into their daily frothing delirium on Fox news.

That case was made possible by FDR’s New Deal creating limits on wheat production. While I think it could have been argued many different ways, they did present a fairly logical argument using the commerce clause against the ND law.

deleted by creator