What are your thought to yet another mass shooting? Is it possible this may have any effect on the ownership of firearms?

[MrShaun]

At least another ten people are dead and a multitude of others are shot in another mass shooting which occurred Saturday night following a Lunar New Year's celebration.

People who support the ownership of firearms suggest it's the only way to protect against such carnage; however, no one stopped the shooting with their own firearm.

Would banning the ownership of firearms limit the amount of such killings? Is it wrong to address such concerns after so many deaths? Will the government start removing firearms from the public?

At least 10 dead.

Updates

+1 y

I appreciate the open and sensible dialog. It makes it difficult to choose a MHO.

There continues to be a debate as to what the second amendment states and is always open to interpretation. Logistically, could we can firearms? Probably not entirely. But any gun legislation should be backed with EXTREMELY STRONG PENALTIES TO INSURE COMPLIANCE.

[Lliam]

The reason why citizens were unable to fire at the shooter was probably because firearms aren't allowed in the venue. Also, California probably has restrictions on where people can be armed.

Honest people obey the law. And it's the law that prevents them from being in a position to help. That's why it's so hollow of "gun control" to say "No second amendment supporters were able to help, therefore guns are of no use?" It's hard to wrap one's mind around such twisted logic.

Here's another zinger. The NYT described his weapon as "a magazine-fed semiautomatic assault pistol". Assault pistol? The gun control propagandists are really disappointed that they can't use this to howl about AR-15s. You know, those high powered, semiautomatic machine guns that fire 1000 clips per second and reduce victims to tiny bits as quickly.

Any murder is tragic. Mass murders are horrific. But, out of 330 million citizens and 450 million people in the country at any one time, random acts of mass murder are committed by very, very few people.

People snap. 45,000 people kill themselves each year. Thank goodness that a very tiny number of those takes anyone with them.

Regarding what to do about it, I have no idea other than to make it easier for responsible citizens to be prepared.

These things are terrible. It's like watching a plane crash or train wreck. We're horrified. And the combined mainstream news sources amplify the horror of each incident by spotlighting it every minute for days. There is a coordinated effort by very powerful forces to shrink second amendment rights into oblivion and they work constantly to get the public on their side.

But name a city in the U. S. in which strong anti-gun legislation has reduced gun violence. Examples seem to indicate the opposite. Cities with strong anti-gun legislation have higher rates of gun violence.

Also, based on 20,000 firearm homicides in 2022, the FBI says that 80% of gun homicides are gang related. That means that 4,000 firearm homicides were not gang related, even if most of those were due to robberies, home break ins and other criminal activity.
4,000 homicides out of over 80 million legal gun owners, 300,000 legally owned firearms, 330 million citizens, and 450 million people in the country suddenly looks like an almost insignificant number when compared to other causes of death. For instance, 40,000 people die from accidental falls each year. 40,000 die from accidental poisoning and also in highway accidents. There are 90% fewer non-gang related firearm homicides than deaths from accidental falls?
250 million people die from preventable hospital error.

So why are deaths related to guns treated as such a crisis? Because unimaginably wealthy and powerful forces are determined to disarm Americans to the greatest extent possible. "Gun control" has nothing to do with saving lives, it's just about "control".

Are we really supposed to believe that billionaires and politicians give a single fuck about the lives of mere commoners?

The constitution is the law of the land. Plus, I don't trust governments any farther than I can throw them. I don't trust them to do the right thing or to keep people safe. Quite the opposite.

[boobliker]

It would over here in the uk, not so much in the us

[Red-Blaze]

Its quality over quantity as sadly as it be to say
You can have hundreds of millions deaths and nothing will change, till someone with publicity and some agenda collide

Just saying lets say if when the thing happen in the.. cenet? goverment.. what ever you call it where the crowed storm it, if someone there went out shooting around, you likely see a much bigger push for a change, but as much as I know no firefights started

Honestly how ever its not like making them ilegal will help for a very long time
First you need to get all the guns that are owned, and out of them deal with "lost" guns
Then you also have to deal with importing, and living in a place that has a lot of it in a small contry can't even imagen how hard that be for the US to do, also with 3D printing

In the end what you need is a better abilty to find cases that may happen and stop them early, guns or no guns are not going to be what stop someone
A bow and arrow, sling shot, fuel, fireworks, homemade stuff are going to remain avaible and can be as deadly, even if less convinent
You also got cars, havey duty machienry, we seen that here

Guns in the end dont kill anyone, its the pepole that hold them that pull the trigger

[Red-Blaze]

Thanks for MHO

[purplepoppy]

Every time there is a mass shooting gun sales go up. American logic is you prevent forest fires by carrying a flaming torch into the woods.

[MrShaun]

It sure doesn't make any sense. It's a ridiculous logic.

[Aerissa_Jade]

I'll support no guns for people when the police aren't allowed them either. After all if NO ONE has guns the police won't need them either.

Of course this means a new constitutional amendment.

The problem is there is no way to ban guns, even now they are the second most trafficked item across the border. Outlawing them means they'll just be trafficked even more.

If the US can't keep out 100% of illegals then they can't keep out 100% of guns, but until then and from the looks of it, this shooter already possessed a gun illegally.

Besides the gun used by this shooter is already illegal and a lot of good that did.

"It was a magazine-fed semiautomatic assault pistol, with an extended magazine attached, according to authorities. This particular firearm with an extended magazine is illegal to possess in California."

The question becomes then, what do we do to protect ourselves when under attack? Where I live, if someone is trying to break into my house to rape or kill me? What do I do if no guns are allowed? Ask them to wait nicely for over an hour for police to show up?

I'm not willing to become a victim so others feel good or safe about it.

I say we need less gun control laws, easier access to guns and that is the right direction to go. 30,000 gun control laws is far too many.

[Irishgirl02]

https://youtu.be/qU0mbo5KbCw

[Fireguy17]

I don't think so.
Firearms are out there whether you try to restrict them or not, look at some of the states that have the toughest gun laws on the books and their murder rate for gun deaths is higher than everyone else. So that really did not work out like it was planned.
There are so many laws on the books about who can possess them, it is already illegal to kill/injure someone, and they really can't enforce those laws, much less new ones.
Look at all of the other ways there have been mass killings, bombs, chemical, knife attacks, vehicles, airplanes, fire, just about anything you can think of, yet those items aren't restricted or regulated.
You can still buy all of the diesel fuel and fertilizer you want.
It would be nice to figure out how to stop these killings, or all killings, yet I don't think there is a way.
Does how kids were raised have anything to do with it, the me generation, no one wins, no one loses, no repercussions for doing something wrong, blameless society, it wasn't my fault.
Does that have anything to do with these situations as well?
Nope, don't blame the person, blame what they used if it was a gun.
If it wasn't a gun it would have been something else.
Look at the Christmas parade in Waukesha, 6 people killed, 62 injured, yet we still have SUVs being sold. No public outcry there what so ever.
I don't really know if there is 1 pat answer that would stop these killings, those that bent on killing and destruction will find a way to do their bidding no matter what.

[UmbrusNightshade]

Mass shootings are actually not a new trend. What is the actual trend is the surveillance society we live in now that has a lot more ease in reporting these incidents. Those that oppose public weapon ownership jump on these incidents and do everything they can to suggest there is an increase in the events happening to push their agenda.


I’m all for regulation to point because there are absolutely conditions that should cause the revocation of the right to own a weapon (such as a history of violent crimes, etc.) or diagnosed mental issues that present a threat to others or the self, but your average, every day person should be allowed to own forms of protection.


If you look at history, dictatorships and authoritarian forms of government have typically been preceded by the suppression or removal of the general public to protect themselves. If only law enforcement and military personnel are allowed to possess weapons, it becomes incredibly difficult for the populace to not be subjected to oppression and inhumane rule as they have an unfair advantage in strength of force.

[Belgie]

This is what will happen. Because this is what ALWAYS happens. (Only Americans are surprised at this.)

The right wing leap into pre-emptive damage control, blaming everything except that guns and ammo are easy to come by. "It's not the right time to talk about gun control." (It never is.)

Right wing dipshits start screaming about the Libs coming for their guns.

Gun sales see a small spike.

The libs eventually get off their asses because their base are screaming at them to do something.

The libs timidly and spinelessly whimper "could we possibly form an action committee to maybe consider the possibility of some day in the future, considering legislation to make gun buyers pass a-"

And the Republicans scream "No! Moloch must drink the blood!!"

And the Democrats retreat into their luxury eco friendly condos (paid for with insider trading,) going "Right, right, gotta have the blood sacrifices, we forgot, sorry. So sorry. Please don't hit us."

And nothing else happens until the next time.

[joeldalton]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[LiamJHayden]

Because the guns are not at fault, any more than a knife is at fault when someone stabs or the car is at fault when someone runs someone over. It is THE INDIVIDUAL who is at fault. Totalitarians always fail to realize that for some reason.

[ChillaxingLove]

This isn’t a hard solution, but people make it hard because they are so in their feelings about guns that they have made guns themselves their main enemy.

1+1=2.. if you ban weapons then CRIMINALS who obviously obey laws will have softer targets and be bolder and frequent. Because nothing says open season then deers walking around with no horns

how do you beat an enemy? take my weapon and let him have easier target?

if our country had normalized carrying guns like breathing air. No one in their right mind would hit up any place with a lot of people because it would be everyone against 1.

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. How do we get the weapon in the right hands. Society’s solution take it from everyone, however because criminals don’t obey laws they are really just taking it from you so you are less capable of defending yourself.

even if everyone had weapons and no one did anything, you still have a better chance then nothing at all. Plus why would you take a persons ability to defend themselves if they didn’t use it.

ok so because you didn’t use the gun I am taking the gun🥴 so now you can just kick rocks and get messed up anyways…makes no sense

[Anpu23]

There's a lot to unpack here.
It is disingenuous to assume that just because this shooting wasn't stopped that all shootings are not stopped by armed resistance. There have been quite a few where the victim count was reduced or no one but the attempted shooter was hurt.
Second the United States Government is banned by its limiting articles from stopping people from owning arms. This was intentioned as a sword of Damocles to prevent government over reach. So any attempt to disarm the population triggers the right to bring arms to bear (whoch literally means to point and shoot the weapons). In other words to try and stop civilian ownership is a call for revolution by US law and customs. Its not as simple as just changing a law, it is tied deeply into rights that the government cannot legislate. The bill of rights is a limiting document of governmental power. It is toed onto 18th century thought of natural rights, rights given to you by your creator not by the government. These rights included the right to defend yourself from any who would abuse you, including your own government. Other rights would include the right to criticize the government without fear of punishment, the right to publish thoughts and opinions especially those critical to the government, right to peacefully assemble, right to petition for grievances etc. This was framed to limit dictatorship and allow the people to live their life without fear of the government.

It hasn't always worked out, but that was its intention.

So to answer your question, it may, but it shouldn't by law and customs.

[Changiis07]

No one stopped the shooting because maybe they did not carry one or were the ones at risk. My thoughts is that you would be smart to carry one for yourself and your family incase you ever come across something like this. Firearms are not to be taken lightly and need a lot of lessons and classes. Relying on cops to stop the shooter will risk your own life because they can't always get there on time. So there are responsible gun owners, sadly you do not need a gun to kill. If all firearms were taken away and there was a lunatic with a machete then how would people defend themselves. Again firearms are not the issue people choose to use ANY kind of weapon to harm someone because that's what they are choosing to do so people could be smart to carry a firearm to be protected from this crazy world

[Aerissa_Jade]

Not even that, but cars will become a high choice weapon, such as in Nice France, where 80+ people killed by that truck driver.

Parades, black Friday lines, sporting events, anything where large crowds gather can become a target.

[Changiis07]

@Aerissa_Jade True that's why we have to always be aware of our surroundings, unfortunately even if we are aware there's still evil people in this world and choose cars as well

[lightbulb27]

It's hard to react without knowing what was going on. How did a guy who thinks people are trying to poison him get a gun and ammo? oh yea, it's his rights. Was there a prior history that would have excluded him from buying a gun?

I think we are like a bunch of children sticking our fingers in a leaking dam trying to stop the water flow. You can find ways to stop this scenario, but there's so many others. We need parents, community, deep emotional healing.

My guess is gun ownership goes up. The fella in Indiana took down a shooter fast, saved lives. Trouble is, it will keep going bad... because so many people are in bad shape and easily incited.

I guess my real thought is... there will be quite a few more this year, and I don't want to be involved in any of them. isn't' that terrible.

[msc545]

Individual that perpetrated the mass shooting was a 72-year-old Asian man with significant mental health problems. I don't imagine we're going to see a repeat of this from anybody in this age or ethnic group anytime soon hopefully. That being said, the Hemet Police Department need some real serious training in mental health since he went to them prior to shooting people and complained that his family was trying to poison him. This should have alerted them that he needed mental health assistance but instead they just sent him on his way. He went on to kill 10 people. In terms of it affecting gun ownership or purchases, I doubt it. If anything it will probably increase the number of guns sold to people who are afraid of being shot themselves. More guns in circulation the more people that get shot.

[LiamJHayden]

From what I heard the firearm he used was illegal, so banning it is shown in this instance to be useless. As we like to say, a ban only disarms the law-abiding, stripping them of their inherent right to self-defense.

https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2023/01/23/suspect-in-monterey-park-massacre-may-have-had-illegal-semi-automatic-handgun/

[Belgie]

So if one junkie can buy heroin, that means we should just get rid of any laws that restrict the sale of heroin because clearly those laws don't work?

Is that the argument you're going with?

One guy gets an illegal thing, therefore laws restricting the illegal thing don't work and shouldn't exist?

[John_Doesnt]

murder is illegal too, so I guess banning it wouldn't work

[PraviteliNahuiValite]

@Belgie does you owning heroin, in any way prevent someone else from administering it to you forcefully?

[PraviteliNahuiValite]

@John_Doesnt murder is legal, as long as there is money.

[LiamJHayden]

@John_Doesnt Missing the point, as usual. Must be a Leftist.

[LiamJHayden]

@Belgie The point is that outlawing firearms does not keep them from criminals. It only keeps them from law-abiding citizens who have not only a constitutional right, but an inherent right to self-defense.

[FieldOfVision]

I'll keep my gun thank you. Need to defend myself somehow from the crazies. Fun fact: the reason for some countries not invading the U. S. is because they know the citizens have a right to bear arms. It's not the weapon that's dangerous, it's the person holding it. The irrational side behind it is, while taking guns away from regular people, bad people can still import it illegally. In that case we are defenseless in many levels. The fall of America begins here. Just saying.

[Uannoyme]

From what I read, the shooter used a semiautomatic handgun. With the CA approved handgun roster being so specific and small, it's likely the gun was already banned there. Of course, I can't be sure of this, considering I haven't found any specific information on the gun.

[Qdbrown]

It's not even on argument. We are a gun culture because deep down we know we are all, humans all-in-all, are the great hairless war monkey.

If you know the next monkey is ready to kill you, that sums it up why we keep guns legal. Freedom over safety.

[Daniela1982]

California has already banned assault weapons years ago, and have strict gun control. Yet you see people can still get them and use them. How many law aiding citizens go on shooting rampages? It is always someone who has mental issues. I think the Government should do something about mental health. Also, when someone warns the police that someone may go off the deep end they do nothing to stop in and nip it in the bud. Or they are like the police at Uvalde and total cowards.

[John_Doesnt]

Does having more guns equal more shootings? Only a genius could figure that one out.

It's not a matter of IF it's a matter of when and where will the next mass shooting happen. Will it be at your child's school? Will it be at your local mall? Will it be at your church? Or will everyone just stay inside forever and never leave? Well that wouldn't help because mass shootings happen in people's homes too.

[Massageman]

Actually, in the states where handguns ARE permitted and lawfully carried, crime rates are lower. Guess I'm not a genius, just law-abiding and logical.

[John_Doesnt]

@Massageman make up data much? Gun violence is highest in red neck states. www.cdc.gov/.../firearm.htm

[Massageman]

Gov't stats for mass shootings in the Top Ten worst states in the last four decades:
CA, 24. TX, 12. FL, 12. CO, 8. WA, 7. WI, 7. IL, 5. PA, 5. NY, 5. MD, 4.
Redneck states aren't even in the running.

[John_Doesnt]

@Massageman proof of those stats? I just gave you a government link about gun violence, all the red neck states have higher gun violence than the blue states.

[John_Doesnt]

it looks like the rednecks blocked me, couldn't handle facts and logic.

[Dargil]

No. That's when we have the Second Amendment for. Maybe it should have an effect on institutionalizing crazies. He obviously was. The cure for mass shootings is Concealed Carry. Ine shot from a.45 could have prevented a lot of bloodshed.

[LogicBomber]

When you have a society that tells white men that they are evil for existing, constantly blames them for everything, hates them openly, takes everything away from them, and then doesn’t care for their mental health or wellbeing …. You get people who snap.

Society only cares about female mental health, female well-being, and female problems (which are practically non-existent in reality). Which is backed on the bullshit belief that “white men are privileged” or “were“ a 100 years ago.

[captain_voidwalker]

Ohh boy another person who wants to label all gun owners because of the bad actions of one or 2 people. Also pretty sure this happened in a city with very restrictive gun laws. This sort of thing tends not to happen in places where everyone and thier dog is packing heat. Seems to me the problem is not enough guns.

[Adaeva]

Almost all mass shootings are false flag operations for the very purpose of getting people to accept gun control.

[Guffrus]

Correct.

Come on America, this girl is 14 years old and she already knows more than 99% of you.

[Tyrael]

Either of you need more tinfoil for those hats or are you good?

[Guffrus]

@Tyrael It is extrodinarily arrogant of you to believe that you know better when you have obviously never invested any of your time in learning about the world.

How could you know anything outside of the mainstream when you have allowed your television to provide 100% of your education?

There really isn't anything at all extreme about the claim being made here, it is simply what the evidence points towards and if you were capable of processing information it would be obvious to you aswell.

[Tyrael]

@Guffrus You make some vast assumptions. I haven't watched television in years. I'm just not naive enough to believe every conspiracy theory that goes around. You think because you found some guy on YouTube that agrees with you and isn't mainstream media, it must be true. Sure thing.

[Adaeva]

@Tyrael The fact you use the expression "conspiracy theory" proves you watch and believe TV and/or other mainstream media.

[Guffrus]

@Tyrael television is a catch all term refering to the mainstream, I don't care which source you are soaking up the SAME bullshit from and no that is not how thinking works.

Just take a look at your fucking profile picture ffs, Nathan Young could be a poster child for wilful ignorance, little wonder then that he is one of your heroes.

[Tyrael]

@Adaeva I use that expression because that's the one that fits, you don't get to dictate how the English language works just because you disagree.

@Guffrus When you resort to personal attacks it just means you've no real argument. I thought the show was funny. Deal with it.

[Guffrus]

I enjoyed Misfit at least as much as you but that, as seems to be common with the things that you say, is completely irrelevant.

Quote: Either of you need more tinfoil for those hats or are you good?

Let's see if your smooth brain can figure out what is wrong with what you just said.

FYI you have 1 more shot at saying something that isn't completely retarded and then you are done forever, so make it count.

[Nikki1989]

The American logic to the gun problem is more guns.

[MrShaun]

There are those who feel the need for guns. Thankfully, they're becoming less and less.

Years ago, this question would have drawn dozens of negative replies; not now though. It seems to be reflective that more Americans are now accepting the need for guns control.

[OlderAndWiser]

This Chinese man used an automobile to get to the site of the shootings, so I think we need to regulate the ownership of motor vehicles by Chinese people.

[OlderAndWiser]

Apparently, the evidence is that this dude manufactured his own firearms as well as ammunition. What law would have stopped him?

[dustybiker]

If Newtown didn’t effect enough of the people with power to change anything, nothing will. 6 yr old kiddies. One shot eleven times with four inch wounds… America is awesome.

[jst4fun]

I guess we could consider the general possibility of having any one of our civil rights removed. In this case, we have the right to bare arms, just not to open fire wherever we want to.

[jimmy2]

Well a study needs to be done on the public under shooting distress we know,,
When fear hits it's, either run, fight or hide
The fight on that with a gun well look at Uvalde where 50or more agency did HIDE for a hour before of all else a Border Guard went in and shot him dead
So the question has a lot of studying needs to be done
For me if I had a gun I would pull it out on 2nd victim

[joeldalton]

No, the government will not start taking guns from people. You’re asking for a lot of finding out with that kind of fucking around. Gun grabbers can die in a fire.

[jshm2]

Ack there are still millions of Americans around. A few being popped off, clearly isn't changing anything!

The problem is ammo - not firearms.

[CAPTAIN-OBVIOUS]

Limiting firearms will not prevent more mass shootings because it will just drive the market underground and people will just buy them illegally instead.

[exitseven]

Yes, more people will go out and buy guns. Some because they feel like they need protection and others because they thing that gun sales will be illegal.

[Lookingforthetruth]

Putting gun laws in place will only affect law abiding citizens. Criminals and deranged lunatics will not adhere to them.

[joeldalton]

case in point, this perp had a gun which was illegal.

[JamesDiaz11]

Well, they can't blame it on white supremacy lol

[Hannajenky]

Gun enthusiasts have their heads up their asses.

We need to remove them from the debate and take peoples guns away. And if they don’t like it then shoot them I guess

[Pterodon]

I think it’s hilarious that it happened in the most unconstitutional, restrictive and gun hating state

[slatyb]

We need to join the rest of the civilized world and strictly limit gun ownership.

[BJP21]

People need to under go a Psych evaluation before gun ownership. Every time there's a mass shooting it always a person who's mentally unstable.

[jackieistired]

Another one? The rifle association funds the US government, so good luck having the government ban guns. They would rather put profit above their citizens. Disgusting

[Willoughby23]

The left will try to use this tragedy to support their political agenda but it won’t work, at least not on the federal level. You might see more gun laws passed at a state level, but at a federal level any ban on guns is dead on arrival.

[Likes2drive]

Every time it happens, they just try to ban another type of weapon when the real problem is the mental health of some people

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

It's just God using/allowing the Devil to use one of his agents to kill the wicked and have them sent to hell where they belong.

Yes, God works like that, believe it or not.

[Asad1ONE1]

^This. Devils in human form.

[FunkyMonkee]

Why won't you go after the shooter instead of the weapon?

[FunkyMonkee]

Yyyyyyeah, right!! ANYBODY that wants a gun can always get their hands on them!! In such cases, only criminals will have them and the rest of us will be left defenseless which is EXACTLY what those that want to get rid of guns want ("those" being people in government, mostly, the illuminati!) because, anyone that can't defend themselves can be EASILY quashed!!

[Anonymous]

It's seems these mass shooters target soft targets where they know no one else will be armed. America is getting really scary

[NachtjaegerSS]

This is a mental health issue more than anything.

[zagor]

Chicago has strict gun control laws. Look at what it has done for them.

[zagor]

No, we don't need EXTREMELY STRONG PENALTIES on new gun laws. What we need is stronger penalties for people who use guns, or knives or anything, to break EXISTING criminal laws by shooting other people or robbing people. Isn't it kind of stupid to make a criminal of someone who owns a gun while we are reducing penalties for people who commit actual crimes against other people?

[Twalli]

It's gotten to the point that I only care if ut happened near me or another family member.

[Fuentes]

Another one happen in the Bay too by another old man.

[melanieeeB]

I was thinking "ahh, america again"

[melanieeeB]

You guys definitely have some problems to be honest

[Agape93]

Verdammt again with this shit? Seriously dude

[QuietRunner]

Aren't these guns banned in California already?

[msc545]

Not the gun itself but the magazine that was used which was an extended capacity magazine is banned in california. Nobody really pays attention to this apparently.

[alcorriher]

yay. another one 🙄

[gorydetails]

I think it's possible that you are a shill.

[JesseJayNeak]

Shop owners must arm themselves

[Guy13]

Where? Data?

[artsy_dragon]

It's so sad 😞