[MiroF]

> Equating mass shootings to basically the “well, terrorism is so rare you’re more likely to get crushed by your TV” scare tactic argument isn’t really fair. I’m sorry, 283* mass shootings in one year in one country is absolutely insane. It’s not a scare tactic, this is quite literally a mass shooting crisis.

Want to take a stab at how likely it is that you are in a school shooting, even if there were 280 shootings involving three or more people?

To be clear, I definitely support gun control. But I also support expanding medicare/medicaid and I'm probably going to fight more the second than the first when one is likely to save many more lives.

[king_magic]

So basically: because the chance is statistically fairly low, let’s abdicate our responsibility to reduce the already absolutely insane number of mass shootings we have in this country, a problem that absolutely no other country has? That may not be exactly what you’re saying, but that’s the conclusion people are drawing here.

Real solid leadership.

By that same logic, let’s go bust out the 737 MAX’s! Hey, they only killed a few hundred people. But nah, must not be that big of a problem.

Come on.

[rayiner]

That’s a disingenuous argument. Nobody is objecting to trying to reduce mass shootings. They are objecting to trying to reduce mass shootings by curtailing constitutional rights of millions of law-abiding gun owners. Even leaving aside the constitutional issue, that’s why the cost benefit analysis is important. It’s justified to try and address a low-probability issue if the solution is commensurately cost free. Gun control is not a cost free solution. It’s an enormously costly one.

[king_magic]

So: “well, let’s just give up on preventing mass gun violence because it costs a money”?

No, mine is really not a disingenuous argument. It’s the same thing: you’re saying it costs money to prevent a small fraction of society being horrible maimed or killed with guns. Same for airplanes. Please explain why it it better for society to minimize low-probability deaths in plane crashes at extremely high cost, but not mass gun violence?

But back to the constitutional argument: no constitutionally recognized rights in the US are unlimited. In this case, yup, I’m completely in favor of curtailing gun rights in a limited fashion if it helps prevent this insanity. If that is a problem for you, go ahead and build a coalition to out-vote my broadly held position. You’re entitled to that.

[rayiner]

Not cost as in money, cost as in depriving people of the freedom to own useful tools. Also, again, what’s with the appeal to emotion? “Sad?” Such words have no place in this debate. Cost-benefit analysis is how you should decide whether to spend other peoples’ money to do anything.

As to the constitutional point: the second amendment is not up for a vote. While gun rights aren’t “unlimited,” the second amendment must be interpreted consistent with the right of people to effectively resist government agents, and that means stuff like assault weapons bans are not constitutional. If you think those rights are misguided in the modern world, fine, gather up a coalition that can amend the constitution. You might find that difficult, because contrary to what you might think, belief in gun rights is the strongest it has been in half a century: https://images.app.goo.gl/9HJwcRLRrdxepDnUA. Even young adults are more pro-gun rights than the same cohort was when the first assault weapons ban was enacted in the 1990s: https://images.app.goo.gl/Vyc2UduAa9Mqehc68. In 1990, 2/3 of young adults said gun control was more important than gun rights, versus 1/3 saying gun rights were more important. Today, it is evenly split.

[king_magic]

There is very broad support for a judicial process to take away people’s guns if they pose a threat as well. If you think that is misguided, I invite you to do the exact same thing.

[MiroF]

Let me flip this on you: I care about people who are dying because they don't have healthcare, not your dumb political games on guns. Sure, you can spend a year agitating for laws that will ultimately save a few hundred of people throughout the country, meanwhile people routinely die because they aren't paid a living wage, can't afford basic medication to survive, and can't afford shelter.

If you're telling me I'm absurd to be focusing on that rather than a phenomenon that kills a few dozens of people, boy do I hope the people in charge aren't listening to you. I care about helping society, not posturing on an issue that is deemed "insane" or a "crisis."

[king_magic]

It’s profoundly sad that preventing hundreds of people being shot to death per year in the US in mass shootings somehow doesn’t quality for “helping society”. To me, yes, that is absurd. This happens nowhere else. It is insane. It’s not posturing: this is batshit crazy.

And guess what, I’m also for expanded healthcare. I just don’t want that to have to include caring for even a fraction of the population having large chunks of their body blown apart.

[MiroF]

Let's be clear that the "prevention" being suggested is monitoring high schoolers faces with AI tracking cameras to see if there are any signs of anger or discontent.

Yes, there are some prices too high to pay and that is certainly one of them.

Gun control? Yes, sure most of us can agree on that. But that's not the context that I was responding to you with.

[RaceWon]

>It’s profoundly sad that preventing hundreds of people being shot to death per year in the US in mass shootings

Tell that to the MILLIONS of Unarmed North Koreans and Chinese in death camps.

[king_magic]

Some local police forces in the US have firepower comparable to some small nation’s militaries.

If any sort of true tyranny came to pass in the US, I don’t have much faith in a bunch of rag tag right wing militia men hiding in the woods fighting back with much success.

[RaceWon]

> Some local police forces

60 MILLION gun owners... and they All have more than one gun. That's enough guns for Every Man Woman, and Child. Good Luck beating us ;)