Every time we think the latest tragedy might garner the political will to change something, nothing happens. This will be no different.
this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
141 points (98.6% liked)
news
706 readers
1129 users here now
A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.
Rules:
- Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
- Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
- Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
- Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
- No link shorteners
- No entire article in the post body
founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
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?
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.
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.
Your desire for this right harms others. Harm reduction isn't personal.
You feeling punished is immaterial, life isn't fair. There are many cases where restrictions are required because humans are flawed. For example air travel. It's not fair that I can't fly anonymously but we live in today's reality and not some imagined future where such a measure is unnecessary.
Gun owners have been giving ample time to come up with a solution but have resist every effort and actually expanded gun rights and worsened the problem.
An amendment to nullify the second amendment is our only resource because your movement has given us no alternative recourse.
I am thoroughly disgusted that the unrelenting behavior of gun culture has caused a need to "for that children" on this issue but here are. :
I not ok with anymore children being murdered by gun violence. You and other gun enthusiasts aren't, gun rights expanded. It's fucking depraved. Anyone who isn't pushing for reform is culpable.
The opinion of those who allow children to be murdered is of zero interest to me.
I do not expect you to agree you're culpable because I believe your opinion would change. If I'm wrong there, please report to the nearly wood chipper. At least most pedophiles leave the child alive.
Gun owners have been giving ample time to come up with a solution but have resist every effort
The lack of legislative action in the US to address gun deaths and gun violence isn’t because gun owners in the US don’t want it, it’s because of the regulatory and legal capture that’s been building in this country over the past half a century or so. Every gun owner I know would like (or at least wouldn’t mind) seeing some sensible measures in place that significantly reduce the number of gun deaths in the US. We also agree that the most effective way to reduce gun deaths and gun violence is to address the root causes and societal factors that contribute to them; poverty, homelessness, drug use, mental health, police training, and so on. If you really want to prevent these deaths, address those first. Most gun owners, in fact, most Americans, agree these things should happen, do advocate for them, and would vote for them, but the sad reality of our political system means these interests aren’t represented.
You feeling punished is immaterial
You’re right, it’s about much more than just me and my feelings; allow me to word my argument more appropriately.
The vast, VAST majority (over 99%) of gun owners in the US exercise their right to bear arms responsibly. Less than one percent of gun owners in the US commit all gun violence on US soil (since shootings on military bases and US embassies abroad contribute to the statistics, I’ll refer to them too).
To restrict the rights of everyone, including everyone who doesn't exercise that right, and everyone who exercises that right responsibly, because one percent of the people who do exercise that right, abuse it, is not a net benefit to, and should be a very concerning proposition to a free society.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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 title
you 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 even
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"
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
load more comments
(7 replies)
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
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.
We?
I haven't entertained this thought since Sandy Hook.
There is no amount of murdered children that will make gun enthusiasts blink.
The Sandy Hook shooting happened and nothing changed. So sad.
South park really did, sadly, hit the nail on the head with this one.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›