this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
107 points (97.3% liked)
news
278 readers
1008 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 3 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
evidently, more
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
This guy is an textbook example of a dumb strawman, especially the gun trotting yankistani dumbass kind.
Alcohol doesn't kill someone else out of nowhere. Long term alcoholism or drunk driving does, for which you have to be on the road or nearby it, which everyone and their grandmother already know are inherently dangerous are people inherently become alert and cautious around roads.
Can you fucking take out alcohol in a busy mall, spray everyone, and kill them?
Holy fucking shit, are you even aware of the mental gymnastic it takes to equate guns to alcohol?
Why not say let's ban water because everyone who drinks it dies?
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.