The post said early indications suggest it could be a “targeted incident” but that information remains limited.
that sort of shooting happens all the time in other countries
Every time we think the latest tragedy might garner the political will to change something, nothing happens. This will be no different.
We?
I haven’t entertained this thought since Sandy Hook.
There is no amount of murdered children that will make gun enthusiasts blink.
California has the strictest gun laws in the US. They passed legislation a few weeks ago that bans owning any Glock handguns in the state (unless you’re a cop, of course) that goes into effect Jan 1, 2026. AR-15s and all other so called “assault weapons” have been banned for years. Plus, it’s still illegal to shoot people. What else do you think needs to happen?
Better border control. Oh wait, California is not a country, so focusing on it’s state laws is misleading when it’s part of a country that has quite lax gun laws in some parts.
Even worse, you can sidestep most of those laws simply by buying out of state with a FFL. Sherrif departments around here hand them out to anyone even remotely conservative. I have a friend from deep oakland who bought a maga hat specifically for when he went to apply for his FFL. Lo and behold, legal suppressors, extended magazines, and all the modified guns he can afford.
You must be confusing a CCW (Concealed Carry of a Weapon) permit with an FFL (Federal Firearms License).
A CCW is obtainable by almost anyone who is over 21 and not a convicted felon, and allows you carry a concealed weapon, such as a handgun or a knife with a blade longer than 3 inches.
An FFL is obtainable by business-owners who pass extensive background checks with the ATF and allows them to legally sell firearms to other people.
A CCW can be obtained over a weekend or two. An FFL takes months of paperwork, interviews, background checks, and filing fees.
If you don’t believe me, please go try and obtain an FFL. I’d be very interested to learn how far you get.
I’m well aware of the difference. FFLs aren’t just for actual business owners. Plenty of private collectors run a “business” of reselling firearms specifically in order to make obtaining a FFL a lot easier. It also is possible to show that you are qualified for one with previous military or law enforcement service, as a firearms instructor, or simply with enough determination and charm around your local police academy.
I think they might be referring to a lower-tier FFL.
CCW doesn’t award you legal suppressors and large capacity magazines in CA.
Correct. To my knowledge, there is no legal way to possess a suppressor or high capacity magazine in California, under their current laws. In (almost) all other states, high capacity magazines are not regulated, and suppressors can be legally obtained with a $200 tax stamp and NFA form.
I’m not from California, so I’m not as familiar with their laws, but I find the idea of an easy loophole to suppressor ownership very difficult to believe.
I never said it was “easy”. It’s not. As the other guy pointed out, it’s a months long, expensive, and personally invasive process to obtain a FFL. That being said, certain individuals are highly motivated to go through the process anyways. My original point was that the entire process becomes streamlined so long as you don’t mind presenting yourself as a conservative. I’ve heard of people being turned down for a years old social media post, but somehow the redhats don’t run into the same issues.
We do need to harden the border, much more than we need to control guns. Immigrants coming in from shit hole country are usually the ones who do this. We need to be damn sure none of those filth get over the sierras.
Is that so? Do you have any data to support this claim?
Yeah, why’s that matter, and why would i dig it up for american filth?
I’m not certain if you’re referring to the border with Mexico or the rest of the US, but if a weapon is banned in California, it’s also banned to import one into California from another US state.
Setting up checkpoints and checking every car coming in for weapons would be a violation of every citizens’ right to travel, and fourth ammendment right against unreasonable searches.
So, how do you propose to implement “better birder control” without violating the rights of citizens who have committed crime?
“better birder control”
Fucking birders and their binoculars.
I love how every week this happens, threads are full of “welp, whaddya gonna do?” in the only country where this happends more than once a day.
I’m simply pointing out that California is part of a wider country therefore some problems can’t be solved by local California legislation. The law must become stricter in the rest of the country as well, though not necessarily as strict as the strictest state.
Until the root causes and societal factors that contribute to violence are addressed, any ban serves only to disarm and criminalize what is an otherwise perfectly law-abiding citizenry.
We still control the border between states pretty strictly in California. Though we aren’t looking for guns; we’re looking for plants and animals that might be invasive.
Not really. There is a checkpoint, but it’s been years since I’ve been stopped there. I travel to Cali 4 or 5 times a year, both through I80 and I15.
The hyperbolic response is “look at what all the countries without weekly/daily mass shooting are doing and copy them”
In reality it’d need to be something culturally systemic, the removal of guns as a cultural touchstone over generations, with laws slowly applied to back up that effort.
Address the root causes of this kind of violence, quality of life, poverty, mental health in general, Provide mental health support and improve conditions so that less support is needed.
and that’d only be scratching the surface.
To address your specific response, banning guns outright probably would bring these numbers down and if these specific numbers going down was the ultimate (and only) goal then that would make sense, but in reality there would probably be significant issues cause by such a move.
Not to say it isn’t viable, just that it’s not clear cut.
I’ve posted a lot on our cultural issue with guns. And I believe a ban would do very little on its own.
We’ve reenforced rhetoric like “fuck around and find out” and made guns and gun violence an equally valid answer to disagreements. They are discussed in horrible ways that don’t stress how they are the final protection against someone trying to seriously and maliciously harm or kill you or someone else.
I believe they have their uses, but we need to take back the gun culture. And build it with responsible use and storage as part of the mindset.
As we’ve seen silence from the 2a crowd after Trump has taken office, which leads me to the idea that this “culture” might have been subversion to get us to harm ourselves.
American travel overseas and do just fine without their guns. There’s no reason they couldn’t adjust to not having guns on hand at home.
Some of us live in rural areas and use guns almost daily to defend crops and livestock from pests and predators. How should those people “adjust”?
By defend crops do you mean kill things? There can be exceptions for specific people to own specific types of guns that would make mass shootings impossible. Eg. If it is a heavy rifle that takes minutes to reload.
By defend crops do you mean kill things?
Yes. White-tailed deer are invasive, eat crops, and cause many single-car accidents in rural areas where emergency services can take 30-45 minutes to respond, if you have cell service to call them. It’s very desirable to hunt them during mating season to control their population. Wild boar are also invasive, eat crops, and leave giant ruts that damage equipment.
There can be exceptions for specific people to own specific types of guns that would make mass shootings impossible.
There is an unfortunately significant overlap between guns ideal for completely legitimate and responsible purposes and guns ideal for committing horrible atrocities.
Eg. If it is a heavy rifle that takes minutes to reload.
Hunting often involves walking long distances into remote areas. For this reason, hunters often desire the lightest rifle they can find that will get the job done. In fact, one of the reasons the AR-15 was so popular when it was introduced to the civilian market (as a hunting rifle with a 5-round magazine, btw) is because it was two pounds lighter (six pounds instead of eight) than the Ruger Mini 14, which was the most popular hunting rifle at the time.
Also, hunting often involves putting yourself in the same areas bears and other dangerous animals call their home. Not being prey is the first rule of hunting. The type of rifle you’re suggesting would offer significant challenges to a hunter who needed to defend themselves from a wild animal.
It’s not that we wouldn’t do fine.
But I think we have bigger issues that go deeper than accessibility to guns.
Cool.
Don’t give a fuck.
Our issues mean we cannot be trusted with guns.
Fix the issues then we can think about having guns again.
Think like an adult, not an gun addict.
So, you want to take away rights from all people, even those who have demonstrated an ability to safely and responsibly own firearms, because a very small minority of people abused those same rights? Why should I be punished because someone else broke the law? How is that not a violation of my sixth ammendment right to due process?
If I were interested in being snarky, this is where I would tell you to think like an adult, not a tyrant.
I’m not against well thought out gun control. But most proposals aren’t well thought out and are knee jerk reactions.
I’m saying we, as a society, have huge issues that still need to be addressed even if guns were banned entirely. Wealth inequality, mental health issues, our entire culture around conflict resolution, racism, housing, social services, food insecurity, etc.
We have lots of underlying issues that lead people to gun violence and those issues won’t magically disappear if gun violence were impossible. Gun violence is a symptom of a desperate population AND easy access to firearms. Fixing the access to guns is only a portion of the solution.
I’m glad we agree the root causes of violence need to be addressed.
I don’t think bans can ever be fully effective unless we, as a society, are willing to violate every gun owner’s second, fourth, fifth, and sixth ammendment rights; I believe that may be some of the problems you’re referring to.
Personally, in addition the other changes you mentioned, I’d like to see a very small tax on gun sales to fund firearm safety and education programs in public schools. If the US wants to embrace firearms as a part of our culture the same way we do cars, I think it’s reasonable to require firearm education the same way we require driver’s education.
Or rise the price of the bullets so much that you have to take a loan to buy a clip.
Your suggestion, if implemented, would result in only the wealthy having a right to self preservation. Are you certain it would be a good idea to consolidate even more power into their hands and further entrench their monopoly on violence?
But then no poor person could be blamed for a shooting. And no poor person could blow his/her head off on a very bad day. And police won’t fear (that much) about being shot when going to any incident.
Banning guns isn’t going to bring the numbers down much if any. Way to many guns out there, it would take 100+ years for the guns to dry up and even then you’d still have them. You’re other points are correct, if we want to curb this violence then we need to focus on why this happens (in this case gang violence). So drugs/poverty/education/safety nets all need to be introduced.
And just another point about gun deaths. 2/3rds are suicides, which is a “why” not a “what tool” was used.
you could do it quicker, like australia did, with a gun buy back scheme
regarding suicides, guns are way too easy. with most other methods, one needs to invest a more mental and physical effort, in which time they might change their minds, or others might intervene
also insert the onion article titleyou could do it quicker, like australia did, with a gun buy back scheme
Australia had a 60% turn in rate on around 1 million firearms, of which they now have more guns in civ hands than before the buy back. Yet still have a lower rate of gun deaths than we do. Why because they actually have safety nets and give a fuck about their citizens. If we had a 60% turn in rate, there would still be 100+ million firearms in civ hands. 100xs more than what Australia had.
regarding suicides, guns are way too easy. with most other methods, one needs to invest a more mental and physical effort, in which time they might change their minds, or others might intervene
Jumping off a building or hanging or any other form of suicide are the other 50% of suicide. So yes firearms are effective and heavily used but you still have 50% using other methods.
also insert the onion article title
While that’s always a funny bit, it literally doesn’t get the other reasons why it won’t work. Prohibition doesn’t work, but it’s gonna magically work on firearms?
it seems the only argument the pro-gun side seems to be able to muster is “it wouldn’t 100% work, so there’s no point even trying”
do you agree with charlie kirk, it’s worth having a few (tens of thousand) deaths a year to be able “protect your god given rights”? (makes perfect sense, if you don’t think about it) the onion title is not “funny” imo, it’s upsetting and true, which is kind of a black comedy when you see people genuinely argue for it
nobody is talking about prohibition, “just” regulation, but also guns are nothing like alcohol or heavy drugs evenit seems the only argument the pro-gun side seems to be able to muster is “it wouldn’t 100% work, so there’s no point even trying”
That’s not what I said at all, what I said was focusing on our citizens well-being will have a much greater impact on gun violence than trying to ban guns.
do you agree with charlie kirk, it’s worth having a few (tens of thousand) deaths a year to be able “protect your god given rights”? (makes perfect sense, if you don’t think about it)
12-13k people die a year from drunk driving deaths per year, nearly as many as all gun homicides combined (sans suicides which make up 2/3rds of gun deaths). So by your logic, we should ban alcohol and that’s the best approach.
Also trying to use that piece of racist shit as a “gotcha” on gun rights is pretty weak, you gonna also toss out that hitler liked bread so I must agree with him too right?
the onion title is not “funny” imo, it’s upsetting and true, which is kind of a black comedy when you see people genuinely argue for it
I argue for it, because people like you suggest that the dems use political capital to try and push more gun control when it has very little support, instead of trying to actually solve our societies problems that would have much greater effect on gun violence.
nobody is talking about prohibition, “just” regulation, but also guns are nothing like alcohol or heavy drugs even
Nearly 4Xs the number of people die via alcohol consumption (178k on average) per year than all gun deaths combined. That’s not even adding in drugs. So you don’t really care about deaths. Just how they die.
And yes, you aren’t suggesting regulation, you’re suggesting a ban, because that’s what a buy back effectively is.
evidently, more
- actually enforce the law, once it’s in effect
- offer incentives to return owned weapons
Millions of Californians already legally own Glock handguns. Enforcing the law in this case refers to confiscating the legally acquired private property of citizens who have demonstrated an ability to safely and responsibly own their property. How do you reconcile your suggestion to enforce the law with those Californians’ fourth ammendment right against unreasonable search and seizure of private property and their six ammendment right to due process?
Incentive programs are one idea, but they do have some problems, the biggest and most obvious being: how much do you offer, who’s going to pay for it, and what do you do with them once you have them?
A Glock handgun retails for $500 - 600. Do you offer that much? If so, that will be very expensive, and now that they’re banned, you won’t be able to sell them for nearly that much to recoup the cost. If you offer less, how is that not a violation of one’s fourth ammendment right against unreasonable seizure of private property?
Should gun manufacturers be responsible for bearing the cost of reimbursing every Glock-owning Californian, or should the citizens who voted for the measure pay for it since they wanted it?
Once all the Glocks are confiscated, what should be done with them? If they’re sold, that just moves the “problem” elsewhere. If they’re destroyed, that’s a waste of perfectly working steel and polymer you just paid good money for.
South park really did, sadly, hit the nail on the head with this one.
The Sandy Hook shooting happened and nothing changed. So sad.
Has anyone else noticed how the national media latched on to the phrase “mass shooting” as a way to get clicks?
They realized how many people will click on anything labeled “mass shooting,” and adjusted accordingly. If it bleeds, it leads.
are you referring to this article as an example? because doesn’t this article fit the bill? over a dozen people injured, four dead
sure there’s maybe an argument over the threshold for duration of the event, but that’s surely enough victims, yeah?
I’m not talking about numbers.
To me it’s telling that the national media completely ignored these types of targeted shootings until there was a way to market them.
That’s quite weird to me! It’s like it’s national news until people just realize it was poor people fighting.
ah, that makes sense. I thought you meant they were just attaching the phrase to as much as possible, on stuff they were already reporting. not adding more reports based on content type.
can’t say I’ve noticed that, though, in the little I pay attention to msm
It’s inaccurate. 4 people have died, making it a mass murder. The other 10 mass shooting victims are then forgotten …or something.
Edit: honestly, kids, that’s the term.
What I’ve just read
