>

It's not just about gun control, there are so many underlying problems that need to be addressed. Income inequality, education, Healthcare, etc.
Also the rise in mass shooters seems to roughly coincide with the decrease in serial killers. I think some a lot of it is the news covering mass shooters so much more than serial killers. 
While many say the psychology is not the same. People imitate what they know. How many would have taken the steps to go though with that form of violence if they hand been exposed to it so much. >

The other key distinction that might explain the rise in one and the decrease in the other is probability of success.  
It has become much harder to be a successful serial killer as technology and forensic science have improved alongside cameras (surveillance, ring cams, etc.) becoming practically ubiquitous. >

The majority of gun deaths in the US are from suicide. It just dawned on me that the other numbers can probably be attributed to suicidal people who just want to take other people down with them. Yikes. >

Thats 1000% what is happening. The question we need to be asking is why do so many people feel so hopeless that they want to die in the first place, and why are they so angry that they want to bring innocent people with them? >

I mean, it seems obvious to me, but when you get depressed and nihlistic at the hopelessness of everything - you either turn it inward or outward. >

Well when it seems like the whole world is against you having a happy and safe life (especially financially) people goto dark places mentally.
You keep seeing these rich people without a care and you would just be happy having a few grand in the bank to sustain a problem, everything seems fucked because it would make your life unsustainable. >

This is what happens when the country that pretends to be about individual freedom is actually all about money. That's all that matters here. Money. Get money, or you're wasting your time. While you're desperately trying to get money, the basic necessities (food, heat, water, shelter, electricity, healthcare, etc...) are all going to be prohibitively expensive. The prices of those items and services are owned by the people who already have TONS of money. 
Then the people with TONS of money pay our elected officials to ensure that all of their money stays with them, despite the fact that they actually don't contribute shit to anything. 
Money > the environment, peoples welfare = suicidal and/or murderous behavior. >

Ya ever wonder why office buildings are more secure than schools? >

There is an art school in sf that is basically a real estate scam. They don't give a shit about their students. The school has security at the front door, but the office of the owner had it's own metal detector and security doors installed because of all the students and employees they have pissed off. >

Are you talking about the Academy of Art University? Curious what school it is. >

Yeah it’s either academy of art university or Sf art institute. Can’t remember which. Both have very similar names but one is known to be a pretty massive scam. >

After Sandy Hook, I am convinced there is NOTHING that will change their minds. It was literally an entire school room of children shot to death. They’ll watch entire schools worth of children be killed and think it’s not their problem. >

They were even given a second chance to care about little kids dying with Uvalde, and not even the responding cops gave a shit. >

Yes but if they didn’t bat an eye at a classroom full of little white kids getting shot what makes you think they’d care about some Hispanic kids. >

They didn't bat an eye at a school filled with RICH WHITE KIDS in Parkland FL.
I assure you, it is a suicide pact. >

werent those high schoolers? probably having sex and shit so gop'ers probably figured it was God taking vengeance against sodomites. >

When NY gets flooded and asks for feds to help, it's God punishing the gays. When Texas freezes over and asks feds for help, and AOC raises millions for them for assistance, well of course it's a totally different thing. Same for Florida. >

But that reality doesn't get told on FOX Entertainment so their base doesn't know, and then calls it fake news when you tell them. >

There was a study done (back in 2012 but likely still accurate) about how informed the viewers of various news shows were by asking them a series of questions on current events. The most informed viewers were those of NPR and The Daily Show. FOX viewers were the least informed, even less informed than those who report watching no news at all.
If the paper itself isn’t available, here is the Business Insider article which summarizes it. >

I've thought about this study a lot lately, I'm surprised to see someone mention it. The gaslighting from the right is so effective and steadfast that, especially because I was raised as a conservative Christian, I sometimes doubt myself. This study helps to counter that feeling. The fact of the matter is that the right is wrong about literally everything because they can't see any deeper than the surface level. Even academically, no serious/respected scientists, economists, philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, teachers/professors, etc. agree with them at all. In fact, most, if not all, of their talking points have been effectively and thoroughly refuted by hard sciences, game theory, psychology, sociology, and history. Thoroughly. 
They think it's a grand conspiracy because it is. That's the truly insidious part of this whole thing. Their leaders knew that they could preemptively DARVO any issue and their base would lap it up for myriad reasons. 
Thanks for reminding those like me that there is an objective reality and it's not the left that is hellbent on ignoring it. >

When nothing changed after Sandy Hook, it was over. >

This got me genuinely (and morbidly) curious what it would actually take to change their minds. 200 innocent children? 200 of their own children? 200 of them? I wish we could do some sort of Black Mirror episode where we implant a false reality in their brains to show them these scenarios until they realize what needs to happen to stop gun violence in America. >

Don't need a black mirror episode. The answer is minority communities taking advantage of open carry laws to organise and protect their own communities against police and racial violence. >

That won’t work anymore. They’ll ban minorities from owning guns or put them in a camp before they ban their precious gun that has become their whole identity. >

Please correct me if I am wrong... The Black Panthers in California armed themselves and lawyered up to follow every rule.  Governor Regan passed laws to prohibit the exact activities they were doing. >

This specific moment in the history of guns in America needs to be more widely known.   Gun control was pretty popular for a hot second once black activists started legally and visibly arming themselves. 
Our racism might be the one force more powerful than our gun fetishism.   Ugh. >

Then what the fuck do we pay them for???
If cops have no obligation to protect the public, they only exist to punish. >

If 2020 wasn't a clear example of not relaying on the police for protection, I don't know what else will.
The police are there to investigate the crime after it had occurred. It is your responsibility to keep your and your loved ones safe. >

100% agreed.  Police are essentially crime janitors.  Most of the time they mop up after the crime has occured and do their best to figure out what happened.  But when you are in the middle of being car jacked with your baby daughter in a car seat do you think asking the car jacker to stand by while you call the police is going to save you?  We are all responsible for the safety of our families and ourselves.  Like the cliche goes, when seconds matter police are minutes/hours away.  It's up to you to protect you and yours. >


It's up to you to protect you and yours.

It's up to society to provide a proper social safety net to reduce poverty, which reduces crime.
The theft is in spending all this fucking money on cops who don't stop criminality, and at this point unless it's an outright murder often won't even bother to seek out punishing crimes after the fact, either (unless they think there's a minority they can harass or kill, or a protest they can stomp their boot on that is).
The idea that cops don't stop crime is correct, but the assessment that it falls on people to "protect themselves" is the wrong takeaway and a smokescreen for the fact that we in the US choose, as a policy, to have poverty and the crime that results from it. All so the rich can get that much richer, and those in power stay in power. >

i dont expect society to somehow step in and protect my wife and i when i pull into our garage at midnight and an armed man slips in just as the garage door closes.  it sure sounds nice tho but its not a current reality.
in the current reality, you are on your own.  if you dont have a means to keep yourself alive at least until the cops show up then you will probably die.
so yes, i say again, it falls on people to protect themselves.  no one else is going to do it when you need it. >

There are more guns in the US than human beings. I don't even know what the solution is any more. >

Accessible and affordable mental healthcare. >

I'd rather live in a society conducive to mental health than to a dystopian nightmare but everyone receives weekly therapy sessions from government subsidized therapists and low-cost corporate approved psychiatric drugs.
For example, we need walkable cities, community centers, public transportation, bikable roads, four-day workweeks, livable minimum wage, affordable housing, parks, police and government who are beholden to the people. >

Correct. When mental health disorders are at all time highs, the system failed. Nothing is going to make people feel better with medicine. >

Why the fuck don’t these ppl just take themselves off the board without hurting anyone…why do they have to drag innocent ass people in their fucking madness, shit pisses me off man >

Because they want to be famous, no one should ever know the name of these shooters. There’s a pile of people online who worship the Columbine kids and other people want that fame too. >

Big time.  The media really glorifies the shooters because they make more money exposing their past.
10 nameless 5 to 10 year olds are dead but we know the shooter ate at Wendy's immediately before the shooting and they were also on x, y, z meds and their favorite anime was friggin Fruits Basket. >

Ya they’ll talk about the shooters for days and interview everyone who ever knew them. They’ll post their pictures everywhere. I always thought it was sick but now that I know how much people idolize them because of that coverage I can’t believe anyone would ever do that. >

It's not just the people that idolize them. They're a very small fraction of the general population.
Part of the problem is the average person has a sense of morbid curiosity so they'll stick around for a minute or two watching the news about the guy who did it. That's all the channel needs to have you watch another ad. Info on the shooter sells so that's what they will play and completely ignore the consequences. 
This is part of the same reason why murder mysteries and cold case shows/podcasts are so popular. >

I didn't expect two cases in a week where old Asian men commit hybrid acts of workplace violence / mass shooting >

Nothing will happen as even children lives haven't moved politicians to regulate.  

"Nothing about this is surprising. Everything about this is infuriating," he told "CBS Evening News" anchor and managing editor Norah O'Donnell on Monday. "The Second Amendment is becoming a suicide pact." 
Newsom clarified that he has "no ideological opposition" against people who "responsibly" own guns and get background checks and training on how to use them. 
But he told O'Donnell that current regulations are falling short. 

...

Newsom mentioned the role of mental health in mass shootings, but he singled out gun access as a factor exacerbating the problem.
"I'm really proud of the work we've done in this space, but we've had decades of neglect," he said. "But respectfully, I will submit that regardless of the challenges it relates to behavioral health, there's not a country in the world that doesn't experience behavioral health issues." >

Republicans. 
Democrats have tried. 
Republicans say no. Every damned time. >

What is being suggested that Democrats haven't already done in CA? They have an assault rifle ban, required firearm permit for ownership, little to no legal CCW and no open carry, a roster of banned handguns, ammo purchases require a background check, red flag laws, transportation laws (keep ammo separate and gun locked), storage laws, suppressor ban, binary fire ban, caliber restrictions, 10-day waiting period, and mandatory gun registration. 
That's in addition to federal laws like requiring background check for every firearm purchase, bump stock bans, etc. 
I'll admit to bias as a gun owner but it's an honest question: what is California missing? >

The same thing the rest of the US is missing: accessible health care. And not just a doctor checkup either. Mental healthcare $$ can be exorbitant. Rehab can be unaffordable.
Hurt people hurt people. >

and even the California senate failed to pass a universal healthcare set up. >

California as a whole is not nearly as progressive as the rest of the country believes.  There are a LOT of Republicans in the Central Valley and north of Sacramento, and many of the Democrats are more corporate types that don't believe in universal, government-provided healthcare. >

Caught the tail end of an interview on NPR this morning (sorry didn't catch the name of the legislator they were interviewing) but he stated that we are now averaging one mass shooting per day in 2023. 24 mass shootings in the U.S. on the 24th of January. "That's all I have to say about that." FG >

Apparently there have been two more mass shootings since this one.
But Hunter Biden's laptop is the real story.
/s because there are people who would actually say that. >

George Santos has become a huge distraction too. Not that he isn’t a disgrace - he absolutely is, but we’ve got bigger fish to fry. >

Respectfully disagree. Let any undecided voters see exactly who the GOP will protect >

At this point the concept of the undecided voter is dead. There is simply too much information that people are exposed to and a lack of critical thinking skills to actually be neutral about politics. >

Police in the United States have no obligation to help you. Your safety is your responsibility. >

💯 accurate. You also have no legal obligation to call them for anything, just take care of the problem yourself. If you have a problem and call the police, now you’ve got two problems . >

Proof he has no intention of running for President because that statement would ruin him in most of the south and Midwest. >

Beto O'Rourke declared that he was coming for AR-15s, and he still ran. And flopped.
And keeps running in Texas. For some reason. >

Beto is a useful punching bag for Abbott. And the Dems in Texas are too stupid to pick a candidate with an actual shot. >

The second amendment isn't even the issue at hand. We could do so much more than we do now, without even approaching infringing on the second amendment. Just enforcing the laws we already have universally would be a great start. >

Never forget Blair Mountain. >

That pesky bill of rights always getting in the way of tyranny! >

Please please for the love of God we need to invest more in mental health support! Think of how many shooters in the United States have ultimately been failed by the mental health system, and succomatu darker urges? There are a lot of sad, sick, broken people in the United states, until we start seeing that meaningfully addressed, I don't think we're going to see a meaningful downturn in violence. >

Says the guy who walks around with security who have  weapons civilians can not even buy. >

“A guy killed a bunch of people with an illegal gun.  We need to make it extra illegal.  That will work.” >

Followed by armed security >

"California Gov. Gavin Newsom is renewing his calls for stricter gun control measures..."
The Monterey Park shooter used a crappy Mac-10 knock off, the Cobray M11 9mm, with an extended magazine, all of which I believe is currently illegal for decades in California.
If it's ALREADY illegal, how would making it "more illegal" have an impact? >

This is a very good comment and overall question. I'm in favor of gun control. 
But why did it fail here?
I honestly don't think slapping on more regulations is the answer. We need a different, better solution. Because clearly, this doesn't work. Even if the problem is guns pouring in from other states, what're you going to do? Inspect every single car that enters the state borders?
No, we need to think critically about all this. >

It failed because to get the California government to enforce a law you have to either be fucking up someone with money or bang the media constantly. And not even banging constantly works sometimes.
Middle class Asians only get the governments attention once they have already been murdered or murder someone. Otherwise they are just cattle. >

If I had an armed security detail 24/7, I'd also question the need for the common rabble to own guns. >

Remember the cops don't have a legal requirement to help you, and even if they did who knows what their response time is going to be? >

Especially if you're a POC and/or live in a shitty neighborhood... >

In the bible, Jesus (the first American) said it's our god given right to own an AR-15. >

It kinda does. Jesus says to sell your clothes to buy swords >

No shit. >

Given the majority of of gun deaths are suicides... >

The shooter used a homemade MAC10 (sub machine gun) and silencer. All of the items are heavily regulated, difficult to obtain and already illegal in CA. No amount of new laws would have prevented what happened. What are you going to do ban raw metal and tools??? >

Was it full auto?  Because it's not a submachine gun otherwise. >

It would be pretty silly for the guy to go through the trouble of putting together a MAC10 and not make it full auto… either way point still stands. >

Nobody considers that firearm violence is a symptom of a larger problem. What’s the larger problem?
The corporate money machine and our government. Nobody considers that our government is responsible for many of our problems, and the solutions they offer are lacking empathy and specifically designed not to threaten the corporate money machine.
For example, the root cause of American violence, goes beyond just guns and glory of violence. Our education system is on the decline, our healthcare is predatory, and our politics are trumped by corporate interest over citizen benefit. Our planet is being destroyed by corporations.
Factor in all of these issues, and you have a lot of angry people and a lot of conflict. How do most men take out their frustrations? Physically. Through violence, through physical means. Not all of them turn to firearms, but some certainly do.
Yes, it is easier to ban guns than it is to fix the root cause that ultimately will result in more problems (symptoms) down the road. Save a penny now, costs a dollar later. But the bill always, always comes due.
Additionally, Americans are hesitant to give up their guns because the government has shown time and time again, they will not protect you, nor is it their duty to do so. I refuse to give up my guns because if I do, nobody will be able to protect me, including myself. 
What do you do when the government says you don’t need these tools to protect you, but also won’t protect you themselves? 
Ultimately, we have one side (Red) pretending the problem doesn't exist, and the other (Blue) who thinks that giving the government more power is the solution.
TLDR: Government indifference and corporate greed is breeding hatred, depression, and negativity that results in emotional/physical outbursts, some of which result in mass shootings and suicides. We (myself included, as a minority) won’t give up our guns because the government won’t protect us anyways. >

I’ll start by saying that I agree that gun violence in the US is a multifaceted issue being caused by a number of different factors. 
But I also can’t ignore that the issues you’ve cited as being the cause are all issues which also impact other countries as well. It begs the question, why is it only the US? >

All I’m saying is Universal healthcare including mental health and a universal income could fix this shit. >

Liberals… If you want gun control, go buy guns.
Almost all important gun control measures taken in America come from when the right see “the wrong people” with guns.
Hell the NRA has proposed gun control in response to minorities arming themselves.
They like guns when they think their side has them. When the other side has them, then it’s a huge deal. >

No better example than the Mulford Act in California thanks to Ronald Reagan's fear of Black Panthers patrolling their neighborhoods with firearms. Pretty funny that Republican Jesus was a bigger gun grabber than Karl Marx >

“Under no circumstances should the proletariat give up its possession of arms” >

Only the american government is allowed to shoot you to death! >

Newsoms a fking joke get this POS out of here >

Wait, I thought those guns were banned in California? How did they get them? 
It’s almost like criminals don’t follow the law >

Free healthcare. Full stop. >

It took New Zealand one mass shooting to change their laws and here's the US who didn't do shit even after kids got killed. >

I'm mostly liberal, but I live in a rural area and own firearms to protect my family and property.
I'm for stricter regulations, but talk like this is a deterrent. Something Democrats just don't seem to grasp. America's an enormous and diverse country, with various regions etc. Blanket criticisms of an amendment that protects my right to own a firearm is off-putting even for liberal gun owners as myself. Which is a good indicator of how off-putting it may be for Independents, and certainly conservatives. >

Weird how all their gun control didn't help