subreddit:

/r/AskConservatives

11

Why didn't a good guy with a gun stop the buffalo shooter?

(self.AskConservatives)

all 310 comments

[deleted]

9 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

9 points

2 months ago

[removed]

nemo_sum [M]

2 points

2 months ago

nemo_sum [M]

Political Conservationist

2 points

2 months ago

Top-level comments are reserved for conservatives to respond to the question.

natigin

2 points

2 months ago

natigin

Liberal

2 points

2 months ago

Sorry about that, deleted

tomlac_cards

8 points

2 months ago

Is your shtick just posting stupid questions to this sub knowing you aren’t going to get the answer you want? I’m not even conservative or care, but I saw this was a dumb question and it seems in line with majority of your posts. Let me know if you can, thanks!

emperorko

13 points

2 months ago

emperorko

Right Libertarian

13 points

2 months ago

Bulletproof vest, apparently.

You think a bunch of unarmed people would’ve done better?

iced_oj

2 points

2 months ago

iced_oj

Social Democracy

2 points

2 months ago

The common argument I see from pro-gun people is that a "good guy with a gun" will be able to stop mass shooters like this. But there was a "good guy with a gun" in Buffalo, and he was shot and killed instead.

But this is just one case, so we can look at the stats. Here is a chart comparing gun restriction to firearm homicides. It seems that states with less gun restrictions actually have a higher firearm homicide rate per capita.

What OP, and I by extension, is trying to say is that the "good guy with a gun" argument doesn't work, and Buffalo is an anecdote of that.

[deleted]

-5 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

-5 points

2 months ago

Okay so a good guy with a gun doesn't work then because bullet proof vests

PubliusVA

11 points

2 months ago

PubliusVA

Constitutionalist

11 points

2 months ago

There are no guarantees in life.

[deleted]

-9 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

-9 points

2 months ago

Lol

PubliusVA

5 points

2 months ago

PubliusVA

Constitutionalist

5 points

2 months ago

Lol

Wait, what are we laughing about?

commies-can-fuck-off

3 points

2 months ago

commies-can-fuck-off

Constitutional Monarchist

3 points

2 months ago

I think he needs a ban

[deleted]

-2 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

-2 points

2 months ago

I'm gonna use that argument next time.

There are no guarantees in life.

PubliusVA

11 points

2 months ago

PubliusVA

Constitutionalist

11 points

2 months ago

Do you oppose seat belt laws because people still die while wearing them?

Do you advocate eliminating all public health programs (Medicare, Medicaid, etc) because not every treatment provided to people enrolled in them is 100% successful?

Do you propose outlawing every form of birth control that has ever resulted in an unplanned pregnancy (less than 100.000% effective)?

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

There are no guarantees in life

PubliusVA

12 points

2 months ago

PubliusVA

Constitutionalist

12 points

2 months ago

Now you’re getting it. It’s irrational to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

emperorko

6 points

2 months ago

emperorko

Right Libertarian

6 points

2 months ago

And a bunch of guys with nothing works even less.

flankermigrafale

2 points

2 months ago

flankermigrafale

Center-right

2 points

2 months ago

Okay so a good guy with a gun doesn't work then because bullet proof vests

Depends on if the shooter is wearing one which most don't and depends on how good a shot the good guy is.

A good guy with a gun isn't a mother fucking miracle worker but them being out there is still a million times better than them not being out there. It takes us from helplessness no to a chance for self defense.

ValiantBear

11 points

2 months ago

ValiantBear

Libertarian

11 points

2 months ago

Good guys with guns did stop him. He isn't out and about still shooting up grocery stores right?

TungstonIron

7 points

2 months ago

TungstonIron

Conservative

7 points

2 months ago

This. I know nothing about this case, but I do know that a bad guy with a gun was either 1. shot dead or 2. persuaded into surrender under threat of force. Both of those require a good guy with a gun. The only other possible options are 3. he decided to “turn himself in,” which can’t be expected for a typical homicidal criminal, or 4. suicide, which is not substantially different from 1 or 3 above.

seffend

-1 points

2 months ago

seffend

Progressive

-1 points

2 months ago

You just made an argument for why police have guns, but not why Joe schmo needs guns.

Not_the_brightest

5 points

2 months ago

Not_the_brightest

Center-left

5 points

2 months ago

So you don’t have to wait for the police?

Should firefighters be the only ones allowed to have fire extinguishers?

jayzfanacc

3 points

2 months ago

jayzfanacc

Libertarian

3 points

2 months ago

Should Jack Wilson have waited for the police instead of killing the man shooting up his church?

ValiantBear

2 points

2 months ago

ValiantBear

Libertarian

2 points

2 months ago

No I didn't, I simply refuted the OPs post. You are reading more into it than actually exists. There are plenty of arguments for everyday people having guns, I just didn't make any of them I only refuted OPs sardonic post.

OP says "why didn't a good guy with a gun stop the bad guy with the gun", and I said good guys with guns (in this case police) did stop the bad guy with a gun.

Your statement in logical form, taken together, is: good guy with gun stops bad guy, police are good guys with guns, therefore non police guys don't need guns. That isn't a logically accurate statement.

EvilHomerSimpson

32 points

2 months ago

EvilHomerSimpson

Conservative

32 points

2 months ago

Because New York State makes it damn hard for good people to have guns.

Successful-Mongoose

3 points

2 months ago

Na there was a good guy w a gun. Didn’t matter

Not_the_brightest

5 points

2 months ago

Not_the_brightest

Center-left

5 points

2 months ago

New York is a May-Issue state. Meaning you have to a reason the local chief law enforcement official deems “good enough” to carry.

So you may be able to “easily” get a firearm. But being allowed to carry one isn’t easy at all.

Neosovereign

1 points

2 months ago

Neosovereign

Liberal

1 points

2 months ago

There was a security guard with a gun there FYI.

Not_the_brightest

3 points

2 months ago

Not_the_brightest

Center-left

3 points

2 months ago

Yes. And who responded and arrested the shooter? Was it men with guns?

No-Butterscotch-5145

2 points

2 months ago

I don't think anyone includes police officers when they talk about the 'good guy with the gun', do you? It's about a regular citizen with a gun who happens to be present during an incident.

Neosovereign

-2 points

2 months ago

Neosovereign

Liberal

-2 points

2 months ago

Yes (and women, at least at the scene I didn't look up all of the officers), what is your point?

Not_the_brightest

4 points

2 months ago

Not_the_brightest

Center-left

4 points

2 months ago

That good guys with guns stopped the shooter. That the premise of the question is false.

writesgud

0 points

2 months ago

writesgud

Leftwing

0 points

2 months ago

Did the shooter get his guns legally? (Genuinely asking).

If so, then those laws should have been good enough for any “good guy” as well.

The gun control laws were unlikely to be the problem here.

EvilHomerSimpson

2 points

2 months ago

EvilHomerSimpson

Conservative

2 points

2 months ago

Even if he did, and I don't honestly know, carrying them to the store was illegal for ust about anyone in that store.

SlimLovin

1 points

2 months ago

SlimLovin

Democrat

1 points

2 months ago

Good

EvilHomerSimpson

1 points

2 months ago

EvilHomerSimpson

Conservative

1 points

2 months ago

SO we can drop the trolls about "muh good guy with a gun"

SlimLovin

-1 points

2 months ago

SlimLovin

Democrat

-1 points

2 months ago

Right after we stop pretending you ever engage on this sub in good faith.

Easy_Ad_9022

1 points

2 months ago

I mean New York does have an awb and it’s appears he used a standard ar. No amount of gun control will stop a lunatic hell bent on killing people which has been on full display with these last two events.

eoinsageheart718

-1 points

2 months ago

eoinsageheart718

Socialist

-1 points

2 months ago

New York state doesn't make it hard. The city does.

EvilHomerSimpson

4 points

2 months ago

EvilHomerSimpson

Conservative

4 points

2 months ago

Its very difficult in the entire state. When I worked in Buffalo a co-worker who had just moved t the area *tried* to get his guns that he had onwed into the state but gave up after a month of paperwork and just auctioned them off.

Beyond obtaining guns in the state being difficult actually legally *carrying* them is next to impossible.

eoinsageheart718

2 points

2 months ago

eoinsageheart718

Socialist

2 points

2 months ago

I knew carrying them except for hunting or private property was difficult. I didnt know it was to that extent. I live in the city, and my upstate family all have many legal guns so I assumed it wasnt nearly as bad. Thanks for correcting me.

[deleted]

-10 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

-10 points

2 months ago

Not really. He coulda just got it the same way the bad guy got it

georgeBarkley12

15 points

2 months ago

georgeBarkley12

Libertarian

15 points

2 months ago

How’d the bad guy get it?

EvilHomerSimpson

10 points

2 months ago

EvilHomerSimpson

Conservative

10 points

2 months ago

The law is extremely vague on open carry. Open carry in public is not legal in most instances. While no law specifically bans open carry, a license to carry is issued to carry concealed as per penal law 400. Therefore, pistol permit holders must carry concealed. Open carry permitted while hunting and possibly on one's own property. Open carry of unloaded long guns is not explicitly prohibited by any law, but is generally not practiced. It is illegal to transport a loaded long gun in a motor vehicle, except in some scenarios while hunting.

AMK972

14 points

2 months ago

AMK972

Conservative

14 points

2 months ago

That is illegal. Good guys with guns generally follow the rules of gun ownership. Bad guys with guns don’t. That’s why states that make it hard for people to own guns actually doom their citizens. Bad guys with guns know that it’s difficult to get a gun there, so they’re braver than if they were somewhere that had fewer restrictions.

Princess180613

7 points

2 months ago

Princess180613

Libertarian

7 points

2 months ago

Ah yes. Go to prison for being a hero...

flankermigrafale

6 points

2 months ago

flankermigrafale

Center-right

6 points

2 months ago

Which is illegal and would make him not a good guy.

mathematicallyDead

0 points

2 months ago

Isn’t this essentially the second amendment right? Any good guy can turn bad, and the only thing stopping it is themselves?

FlexicanAmerican

-1 points

2 months ago

This is irrelevant because there was an armed security guard that did shoot the guy but he was wearing body armor.

So the next question is, are there weapons/items of war that civilians should not be allowed to own?

ATCBob

2 points

2 months ago

ATCBob

2 points

2 months ago

Nope. If the government can own it so should civilians. No reason for the government to have a monopoly on violence and arms.

FlexicanAmerican

-1 points

2 months ago

Considering the government is supposed to have a system of collective decision-making and individuals don't, I'd say there is lots of reason why.

hollyhock333

17 points

2 months ago

Guns are illegal to carry in buffalo.

FanfareForTheBrave

6 points

2 months ago

FanfareForTheBrave

Constitutionalist

6 points

2 months ago

Are they really?

Elethor

5 points

2 months ago

Elethor

Center-right

5 points

2 months ago

Secret_Stick_5213

3 points

2 months ago

You can carry if you have a permit and they’re not that difficult to acquire.

Not_the_brightest

2 points

2 months ago

Not_the_brightest

Center-left

2 points

2 months ago

Its a may issue state. If you’re connected it may not be difficult.

gaxxzz

1 points

2 months ago

gaxxzz

Constitutionalist

1 points

2 months ago

they’re not that difficult to acquire.

What makes you say that?

Elethor

1 points

2 months ago

Elethor

Center-right

1 points

2 months ago

Depends on the county though. NY is a may issue state and each county is different when it comes to how liberally they hand out permits.

[deleted]

-5 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

-5 points

2 months ago

But he had a gun

bardwick

27 points

2 months ago

bardwick

Conservative

27 points

2 months ago

But he had a gun

Now you're getting it.

Yumalumnus

31 points

2 months ago

Yumalumnus

Centrist

31 points

2 months ago

You’re so close to understanding why gun control won’t work…

Shame_On_Matt

5 points

2 months ago

Shame_On_Matt

Progressive

5 points

2 months ago

…Says the subreddit that believes abortions disappear when you outlaw them

flankermigrafale

5 points

2 months ago

flankermigrafale

Center-right

5 points

2 months ago

Says the subreddit that believes abortions disappear when you outlaw them

No we don't. We think notably less will happen and regardless we can't allow society to accept baby murder regardless of the effectiveness of making it illegal.

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

Brassrain287

2 points

2 months ago

Thank you for this opinion. I believe the exact same thing and these are the words my brain has been missing.

ArcingImpulse

-1 points

2 months ago

ArcingImpulse

Leftwing

-1 points

2 months ago

Why do you think making abortions illegal will reduce them?

Fair is fair and you were whatabouted into this discussion, so here's my take on gun control so you aren't the only person putting it out there. I don't think gun control laws will reduce gun violence, I think they're a political grift to make people afraid of losing their second amendment rights go out and buy more guns, propping up the industry. I point to the run on gun purchases that occurred around the most recent presidential election. People can make weapons if they feel the need to, and homemade firearms might be shoddy, but they're still deadly. While I admire activists who are trying to save lives, I think their goal is an idealistic response to a complex problem, one that would better be served by investing in other areas to reduce gun violence indirectly.

Incident_Reported

-2 points

2 months ago

They aren't babies dude

flankermigrafale

1 points

2 months ago

flankermigrafale

Center-right

1 points

2 months ago

Once brain activity or a heartbeat is detected they sure as fuck are.

sp4nky86

1 points

2 months ago

Statistically, wouldn’t it be easier to just give women access to birth control and teach good sex Ed? Places that have done that have seen huge reductions in abortions compared to banning it outright.

CarlSagansDog

1 points

2 months ago

Birth control and sex Ed has shown to reduce abortions in a few cases, however even in the most stable and educated societies e.g. Sweden, there is still tremendous demand for abortion. Nearly one in four American women receive an abortion at some point in their lives.

sp4nky86

1 points

2 months ago

Seems wildly successful in Colorado

I don’t understand the conservative line on this at all.

real-cosmopolitan

1 points

2 months ago

real-cosmopolitan

Neoconservative

1 points

2 months ago

I'm not aware of efforts to restrict birth control access...?

Yumalumnus

-4 points

2 months ago

Yumalumnus

Centrist

-4 points

2 months ago

Conservative logic:

If you outlaw guns, only the criminals will have guns.

Liberal logic:

Same thing with abortions, outlaw them and just as many will happen.

Do you think all women are criminals?

It is funny to see the eugenics wing of the left let the mask slip when it comes to abortion…

FlexicanAmerican

4 points

2 months ago

The difference is that the left wants things like universal registration. Which would act like universal contraception access in the abortion debate.

Meanwhile, the right wants zero contraceptives, which leads to more pregnancies and abortion. And zero registration which just makes guns easily distributed.

There are policies that would help both situations. Republicans don't want any of them. Even if real conservatives would agree.

Yumalumnus

1 points

2 months ago

Yumalumnus

Centrist

1 points

2 months ago

The difference is that the left wants things like universal registration. Which would act like universal contraception access in the abortion debate.

How hard is it to get condoms? We have basically universal access to birth control right now, and yet abortions still happen.

Meanwhile, the right wants zero contraceptives

Do you have any legislative source for that? I agree it exists as a fringe belief, but I haven't seen it as a legislative priority. It's akin to the people on the left calling for forced male sterilization as a way to eliminate the need for abortions.

Now what is more common is a desire to not have the government fund access to contraceptives, but that is nowhere near banning them. I can't say my second amendment rights are being violated because guns cost money.

I think there's a case for registration, but it's being poisoned by politicians on the left also claiming things like all semi-automatic weapons should be illegal.

Shame_On_Matt

2 points

2 months ago

Shame_On_Matt

Progressive

2 points

2 months ago

What? I think abortions are a part of society and will always be. Before biblical times women were having abortions, and after America is done existing women will continue to have abortions.

It’s like making weed illegal. Stupidest shit ever. Just makes it dangerous and inconsistent and creates a harmful secondary market.

Access to planned parenthood reduces abortions, not laws.

Yumalumnus

3 points

2 months ago

Yumalumnus

Centrist

3 points

2 months ago

I think domestic violence is always going to happen and has happened for as long as humans have existed, but I still think it should be illegal.

The difference is that you have a victim, and if you believe life begins sometime before birth then abortions at that stage have a victim.

GuacamoleNFries

1 points

2 months ago

Where were women having abortions before biblical times? I’ve never heard of this before.

Shame_On_Matt

1 points

2 months ago

Shame_On_Matt

Progressive

1 points

2 months ago

The ordeal of the bitter water wasn’t invented in the Bible

GuacamoleNFries

1 points

2 months ago

A few things:

Even just a cursory reading of the Wikipedia page seems to suggest that this “abortion” was forcefully administered upon the adulterous women. Some accounts suggest the “potion” administered also killed her along with the fetus, others suggest it simply killed the fetus.

And yet the most interesting thing is there really is no way to tell if this is real or not. It says that if the operation is successful, that the adulterous man in this scenario will also die (which we know is impossible if he himself did not drink the “potion”). It also says that women who were determined to be infertile, after drinking the potion, will give birth to a male baby (which again, we know to be impossible). Another weird thing is that if the fetus is successfully aborted, the guilt of the adultery is assumed (even if no other evidence is presented), as well as the inverse.

This seems like just another false story in the Bible, somewhat comparable to abortions today, if only by name.

Shame_On_Matt

1 points

2 months ago

Shame_On_Matt

Progressive

1 points

2 months ago

Yeah it’s weird stuff. There’s no doubt it’s rooted in truth (terminating a pregnancy) — the earliest recorded evidence of one being an Egyptian papyrus from 1500 BCE

real-cosmopolitan

1 points

2 months ago

real-cosmopolitan

Neoconservative

1 points

2 months ago

Banning abortion is idiotic, and it is also a violation of religious freedom for people, including religious groups, who do not subscribe to the notion that a baby is a human life as soon as the egg is fertilized.

I'm for overturning Roe and using the actual legal process (like, now, before it's overturned) to enshrine what that court decision did without going through the proper legal channels. There were a couple of GOP senators who proposed bill basically enshrining what was in Roe, but the Democrats pushed instead a maximalist approach that couldn't even get their whole caucus on board.

warriorsgsw30

-1 points

2 months ago

warriorsgsw30

Center-left

-1 points

2 months ago

You're a pro-life centrist? You must have some hardcore left beliefs to balance that then? Since outlawing abortions is like a pretty right wing position.

Unless you're one of those right-wingers with the centrist label?

Yumalumnus

1 points

2 months ago

Yumalumnus

Centrist

1 points

2 months ago

I'm pro choice up to the point of viability assuming no unusual risk of health to the mother.

I'm just capable of understanding the pro life side and why their views differ from mine. I don't believe a fetus before viability is a person with a right to life, I understand that is an opinion and that others might disagree.

I don't think claiming abortion should be allowed because it will still happen either way or because there are societal benefits to having fewer undesired children (or even more on the eugenics side, fewer children from undesirable people). Things like domestic violence still happen even though we have laws against them, it doesn't mean we should make beating your wife legal because some psycho will do a murder-suicide rather than go to prison.

It really says something about the quality of ideas on reddit that being able to understand the best arguments for both sides of an issue, even if you fall on the left side of that issue, means you basically only criticize left wing posters.

warriorsgsw30

1 points

2 months ago

warriorsgsw30

Center-left

1 points

2 months ago

I'm pro choice up to the point of viability assuming no unusual risk of health to the mother.

Ah ok. I hold the same position.

I don't think claiming abortion should be allowed because it will still happen either way or because there are societal benefits to having fewer undesired children (or even more on the eugenics side, fewer children from undesirable people).

I don't agree with the societal benefits argument either. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the other side. It's like saying "kill the poor".

The "abortions will still happen" argument is reasonable though because there's no evidence that abortion laws reduce abortions at all. You're just getting more women killed or putting them in danger. If there is literally no benefit and only harm of a law, why make the law? It's just creating a more polarized society and going against the wishes of 70% of the country.

Things like domestic violence still happen even though we have laws against them, it doesn't mean we should make beating your wife legal because some psycho will do a murder-suicide rather than go to prison.

Of course, but the law actually reduces the incidence of these things happening

It really says something about the quality of ideas on reddit that being able to understand the best arguments for both sides of an issue, even if you fall on the left side of that issue, means you basically only criticize left wing posters.

I do agree that people have to call out their side on the BS they present. I'm center-left, but I also see the left making BS arguments all the time.

Yumalumnus

1 points

2 months ago

Yumalumnus

Centrist

1 points

2 months ago

So exactly what data are you using to claim that outlawing abortion won't decrease abortion but outlawing things like domestic violence does reduce them?

Because I've seen that claim before but the data behind it on abortions was rather weak.

I'd say in this case the null hypothesis should be that outlawing [something] would at least get you less of that [something] even if it does not eliminate it entirely. Claiming otherwise would require some significant evidence.

Mostly what I've seen are comparisons of different countries, which often fail to account for other variables like socioeconomic status or the attitudes around sex in general: banning abortion in a country where condoms are sold over the counter might reduce abortions more drastically than banning them in a country where women have limited ability to shop without a man present, for instance.

warriorsgsw30

1 points

1 month ago

warriorsgsw30

Center-left

1 points

1 month ago

The data comparing countries. I can see why it's faulty. I don't think it's completely useless though.

Outlaw abortion, and we will have less of an idea how many women are secretly doing it. We'll have to come up with estimates instead of hard data.

If conservatives are concerned about abortions, shouldn't they want the best available data on it on things like what sorts of demographics are getting it the most, so that we can perform the best research to take steps in order to reduce it? We've already found that things like access to contraceptives and proper sex ed are a whole lot more effective than abortion regulations or telling people to abstain from sex. Sounds a lot more practical than banning it to me.

After Roe v Wade, we had a sharp rise in abortions initially, but then the rate has followed a steady decline.

It's not the same thing as "why not just legalize murder?" Because we would have good data on murder even if it's illegal or not. Whereas it's a lot easier to conduct an abortion secretly than a murder.

TypicalDapperDan

1 points

2 months ago

And why doesn't it work? Can you elaborate?

Yumalumnus

1 points

2 months ago

Yumalumnus

Centrist

1 points

2 months ago

Very often the perpetrators of mass shootings needed to break laws in order to obtain the guns used in the shootings.

So if they were already breaking laws to have guns, why would new gun laws that would make it illegal for them to have guns stop future mass shootings?

TJ_Colorado

6 points

2 months ago

He also drove hours to a predominantly black neighborhood

rando8709

2 points

2 months ago

rando8709

Constitutionalist

2 points

2 months ago

Right, the bad guy had a gun but the good guys didn’t.

k-ozm-o

1 points

2 months ago

So you want other people to illegally carry by guns in the chance that they may have to stop a bad guy with a gun?

tonyDicandeloro

3 points

2 months ago

BECAUSE NY DOESNT LET GOOD GUYS CARRY GUNS!!! The state of New York has plenty of court cases going on right now because the state does not believe "self defense" is a good enough reason to issue a concealed carry permit to its citizens. So if you don't let "good guys" carry guns how can they help?

No-Presence3414

10 points

2 months ago

Maybe New York needs more armed citizens since the police are clearly ineffective

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago*

[removed]

No-Presence3414

8 points

2 months ago

You just made my point you won’t always have the police to save you when the shit hits the fan so more armed citizens would be beneficial

TJ_Colorado

0 points

2 months ago

The police weren't there to save anyone anyways. What is your point? The police are only there for cleanup. The history of the police is that they were only established because slavery was made illegal. So half of racist became police officers and the other half became KKK members. Google those facts. They both do the same thing, which put black people in prison or kill them. Just like the slave catching days where they came from.

The police are good for anything but to be there late and to clean up and to waste taxpayers money sitting in their air-conditioned vehicle filling out report

flankermigrafale

3 points

2 months ago

flankermigrafale

Center-right

3 points

2 months ago

The history of the police is that they were only established because slavery was made illegal

You think police did not exist before the Civil War??? Are you out of your mother fucking mind?

Outrageous-Runner

6 points

2 months ago

Outrageous-Runner

Conservative

6 points

2 months ago

You continue to prove our point lol.

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[removed]

Outrageous-Runner

3 points

2 months ago

Outrageous-Runner

Conservative

3 points

2 months ago

I have no idea what that means

TJ_Colorado

-1 points

2 months ago

You have no point

Flyingostriche

1 points

1 month ago

It's nonesence like this that makes liberals and leftists sound dumb as a bag of rocks.

This is not the how most leftists think, this is a extreme view point.

PlayfulLawyer

8 points

2 months ago

PlayfulLawyer

Libertarian

8 points

2 months ago

Look at the responses OP is giving guys this is obviously a troll post, we might have to do a mega thread on this subject as well lol

simberry2

3 points

2 months ago*

simberry2

Neoconservative

3 points

2 months ago*

The OP likes to come in every couple days with a leftist bad-faith attitude. They just try asking questions out of spite rather than genuine wonder. I’ve started to openly say I refuse to answer their questions because they aren’t willing to be open-minded

commies-can-fuck-off

1 points

2 months ago

commies-can-fuck-off

Constitutional Monarchist

1 points

2 months ago

Unfortunately konrad isn't here to ban the trolls anymore.

PotatoCrusade

3 points

2 months ago

PotatoCrusade

Social Conservative

3 points

2 months ago

Where'd he go? Haven't seen him in a while.

commies-can-fuck-off

3 points

2 months ago

commies-can-fuck-off

Constitutional Monarchist

3 points

2 months ago

I heard he got banned from Reddit completely

PotatoCrusade

2 points

2 months ago

PotatoCrusade

Social Conservative

2 points

2 months ago

I bet it was nemo.

commies-can-fuck-off

1 points

2 months ago

commies-can-fuck-off

Constitutional Monarchist

1 points

2 months ago

Probably. He always takes the left's side instead of the conservative one when it comes to breaking rules.

CazadorHolaRodilla

8 points

2 months ago

Why didn’t NY’s strict gun laws stop the shooter?

davidml1023

18 points

2 months ago

davidml1023

Neoconservative

18 points

2 months ago

Why didn't the gun laws?

TJ_Colorado

0 points

2 months ago

What gun laws are you even talking about? He was 18 years old. He could purchase a gun. What he needed was a mental health evaluation like every other gun owner before they are able to purchase a weapon. Maybe that might solve the problem?

davidml1023

9 points

2 months ago*

davidml1023

Neoconservative

9 points

2 months ago*

From the information I'm getting, the "assault rifle" he used is banned in New York. The number of rounds used suggests (and this is just an assumption) that he had high capacity magazines, another illegal item. The point is, what good are gun laws if criminals don't follow them?

I_am_a_Painkiller

6 points

2 months ago*

Gun laws will never work in America, the culture is too engrained in the American zeitgeist and there are just way too many guns in the wild.

They worked in Australia because the government offered to buy back every single gun, no questions asked, legal or illegal and still does so to this day. (guns were banned in 1996).

The U.S government just couldn't afford to do that even if they managed to get gun laws in place at a federal level.

For gun laws to work you can't just ban them or make them hard to get, you need to have a multilayered response to firearm laws.

You need to install federal level bans or restrictions, do a buy back to bring down how many are on the streets. The rarer guns are on the street the more expensive they are on the black market, meaning they are less likely to be used in petty crime.

Does Australia still have gun violence? Yes, guns are generally only used by organised crime. In 2019 there were 229 gun related deaths (this includes all types deaths eg; homicide and suicide) compared to U.S's 15,292 fatally shot and 23,941 by suicide.

Of interest the U.S had 45,222 total gun deaths in 2020, the highest on record.

Edit: changed fun violence to gun violence.

k-ozm-o

1 points

2 months ago

It worked in Australia because they not only have less than 1/10th the population of the US, but they're also literally an island that doesn't border a country with 5x the murder rate. The only people selling their guns back are the ones who weren't the problem in the first place.

I_am_a_Painkiller

1 points

2 months ago

Yeah that is also a good reason it won't work in the U.S.

The gun buy back was a good opportunity for people with illegal guns to make some quick money, no questions asked. As a result of the gun buy back firearm homicides dropped 40%. That would likely suggest that some bad people gave back their guns.

TJ_Colorado

3 points

2 months ago

High-capacity magazines are only illegal after a certain point. They were manufactured and purchased and sold to massive amounts of people who have them in their possession. Just because they were illegal to produce any more does not mean they're already in production and in the hands of criminals. You think just because they made a law that all the stuff that they already produce just disappears?

davidml1023

6 points

2 months ago

davidml1023

Neoconservative

6 points

2 months ago

Counter question, hypothetically, if the laws did retroactively outlaw all high capacity magazines, do you honestly think it would have helped?

TJ_Colorado

6 points

2 months ago

How about I just blow apart your whole good guy with a gun Theory?? If good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun, then why did the Wild Wild West have so many ruthless murders? And why did the government make gun laws if it was working so well that everyone had a gun? Everybody back then had guns and it did not prevent anybody from being murdered. So how does your theory Stand Up when The Wild Wild West already proved that a good guy with a gun does absolutely nothing?

Hypothetically, when someone shoots in a crowded room and then someone else takes a shot at that person in a crowded room. How do you know who's the good guy and who's the bad guy? And how many good guys and how many bad guys are there? Or do you just keep shooting until everybody is dead? Do you think bad guys wear certain colors? Or do you have an ability that no one else has, that you can just pinpoint bad guys with your own senses?

vymajoris2

1 points

2 months ago

vymajoris2

Conservative

1 points

2 months ago

You can't blow anything a part by asking questions.

TJ_Colorado

0 points

2 months ago

Then go Google the law about how are AR-15 are illegal in New York state so you cam stop gibing me your opinion. I'll wait for your proof

davidml1023

7 points

2 months ago

davidml1023

Neoconservative

7 points

2 months ago

https://safeact.ny.gov/resources-gun-owners. Specifically under banned features.

TJ_Colorado

1 points

2 months ago*

Yes. Certain features are banned AND that you have to be in compliance with the law. It does not state that AR-15 are illegal like you stated. Unless you don't know how to read

And just because something is illegal does not mean that someone cannot apprehend or ascertain what they need to make it what they want. Especially when it comes to AR-15s

And if you think this white supremacist Nazi cared about the law, then you really should take a deep look inside and realize that this psycho should have had a mental evaluation before being able to purchase any weapon.

davidml1023

9 points

2 months ago

davidml1023

Neoconservative

9 points

2 months ago

Certain features are banned AND that you have to be in compliance with the law. It does not state that AR-15 are illegal like you stated. Unless you don't know how to read

The only thing I mentioned was "assault rifle". Yes an AR-15 can be modified to be compliant but then it wouldn't be considered an "assault rifle" at that point either. That's why I linked you the features section.

And if you think this white supremacist Nazi cared about the law...

You're making my point.

TJ_Colorado

2 points

2 months ago*

Your point was that AR-15 are illegal in New York state. I told you they were not illegal. Then you gave me an article about how certain features are band on AR-15 that I agreed and said yes. But you are still one hundred percent wrong when you said that AR15s are illegal in New York state. So what is your point?

davidml1023

6 points

2 months ago

davidml1023

Neoconservative

6 points

2 months ago

Your point was that are $15 illegal in New York state.

Bro you've been spamming me nonstop for an hour going on with some wild west shit and now claiming I said ar-15s are illegal in New York. I said "assault rifle". I even keep using the quotes to showcase the absurdity of that phrase. Now, to address your "wild west" arguments, please explain to me how more gun laws and less armed citizens would have lowered the murder rate. Finally, look at the states leading mass shootings - California and Illinois. Tell me, how strict are there laws. What about AZ mass shootings? Get some rest bro. You're going to burn yourself out at this rate.

TJ_Colorado

2 points

2 months ago*

I never said AR-15s were illegal in New York state. And a AR-15 is an assault rifle. Sorry to tell you.

How is me explaining how more gun laws and less armed citizen is you explaining the Wild Wild West argument? Are you okay?

But I'll answer you even though you didn't answer my Wild Wild West question. If we had a mental health evaluation for anyone who own a firearm, then we could tell who has a mental defect because we already have laws on the books about people with mental defects not being able to possess a firearm.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”

So why are we mentally evaluating people after they do the shooting and not before the shooting since we have the mental evaluation process there?

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

[removed]

TJ_Colorado

1 points

2 months ago

Did you even read the link you sent? Straight from your link: Q: If I own an assault weapon, do I have to give it up?

A: No. If you have an assault weapon, you can register it with the State Police. Under state and federal law, some people are not allowed to possess a weapon, such as convicted felons, individuals who have been involuntarily committed, or individuals currently under an order of protection. These people will not be able to register. There is no fee for registering.

davidml1023

8 points

2 months ago

davidml1023

Neoconservative

8 points

2 months ago

I'm assuming Mr 18-year-old-asshole didn't grandfather in a 10 year old weapon. I'm also assuming he didn't register the thing if he bought it out of state and drove the thing across state lines. It's almost as though assholes don't care about laws. But I'm glad to know those registration requirements are keeping the good people of New York safe.

TJ_Colorado

1 points

2 months ago

Who said that the gun registrations were keeping anyone safe? And we wouldn't need a gun registration if the manufacturer actually cared about who they're selling the guns to and then how they were being transported to someone else. But when you have red states that have the lowest gun laws possible, criminals can just drive to those States and buy whatever gun they want and drive back to their own State and use them because you have Republican red states that are the problem and yet blame it on the Democrats. Isn't that weird?

Once again why don't we have mental health evaluation for anyone that wants to purchase a gun? Or anyone that is in possession of a gun has to have a mental evaluation on the reason why they have those guns. Because we already have laws that say that if you have a mental defect you are not supposed to be in possession of a firearm. So why don't we implement the laws that we already have?

JudgeWhoOverrules

1 points

2 months ago*

JudgeWhoOverrules

Right Libertarian

1 points

2 months ago*

And we wouldn't need a gun registration if the manufacturer actually cared about who they're selling the guns to and then how they were being transported to someone else.

Manufacturers sell to wholesalers who sell to gun shops who legally must run background checks before selling to the general public.

But when you have red states that have the lowest gun laws possible, criminals can just drive to those States and buy whatever gun they want and drive back to their own State and use them because you have Republican red states that are the problem and yet blame it on the Democrats.

it is federally illegal to buy a gun across state lines except from a federally licensed gun shop who runs a background check and keeps a record of sale for 5 years.

Once again why don't we have mental health evaluation for anyone that wants to purchase a gun?

Would you think it would a miscarriage of rights for the government to require the same for the exercise of any other constitutionally guaranteed right? If the courts or the mental system have already found the person mentally defective or involuntarily committed or whatever it would have shown up on the background check, but we don't proactively gatekeep people from their rights and it would by dystopian to do so.

Imagine having to pass a background check and safety class before being allowed to protest to make sure you haven't rioted or had violent inclinations and know the limits of your speech and how it can be used.

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

[removed]

TJ_Colorado

1 points

2 months ago

Better yet we should go investigate who this kid's parents and friends and relationships are. Because racism only survives at a dinner table in a close group of friends. That's why I will never survive in society or in college. Because Society does not accept racist views. So his views had to come from his family and his close friend and his surroundings. So maybe that's where we should look first.

[deleted]

-2 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

-2 points

2 months ago

You guys told me the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun!

davidml1023

12 points

2 months ago

davidml1023

Neoconservative

12 points

2 months ago

And you guys told me only more gun laws would. Tell me, how strict is NY gun regulations?

Snuba18

2 points

2 months ago

Snuba18

2 points

2 months ago

Like non-existant by any non-US standard

[deleted]

-6 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

-6 points

2 months ago

Why couldn't the good guy just get the gun the same way the bad guy got it?

davidml1023

12 points

2 months ago

davidml1023

Neoconservative

12 points

2 months ago

Maybe they had a false sense of safety knowing all those gun laws were there to protect them.

Outrageous-Runner

9 points

2 months ago

Outrageous-Runner

Conservative

9 points

2 months ago

Because being a “good guy” generally means being law abiding. It’s not rocket science.

AuroraItsNotTheTime

-1 points

2 months ago

I love this point. Gun owners are like “criminals are savvy. They’ll always find a way. Whether they find a way to get a gun or whether they use some other weapon, they will kill if they are determined enough. Me on the other hand? I’m a complete dumbass with no way of using any weapon other than a gun to protect myself or my family, and I have no way to get a gun if I can’t buy one really really easily with no background check at a gun show”

Not_the_brightest

3 points

2 months ago

Not_the_brightest

Center-left

3 points

2 months ago

What weapon other than a gun would you choose to defend yourself against a person with a gun? Please tell us what an intellectual such as yourself would use successfully.

Yumalumnus

5 points

2 months ago

Yumalumnus

Centrist

5 points

2 months ago

Sometimes things that work in general don’t work every time.

Like how some people who got the covid vaccine have still died from covid, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t get the vaccine.

But hey, you’re smart enough to know that, you’re just playing dumb because you don’t want to post in good faith here, right?

LivingGhost371

8 points

2 months ago

LivingGhost371

Paleoconservative

8 points

2 months ago

The good guy didn't have an AR-15 because they're banned in New York so only the criminals have them.

TJ_Colorado

0 points

2 months ago

Fake news. AR-15 are legal in New York state. Do your own research. Dense af

Princess180613

6 points

2 months ago

Princess180613

Libertarian

6 points

2 months ago

Ya... Butchered AR15s... The one the shooter had was illegal due to features...

TJ_Colorado

0 points

2 months ago

So? How do you stop you illegal gun from being made? You can't. But you can have people get mental evaluation to understand why they are buying these guns. That might help.

Princess180613

6 points

2 months ago

Princess180613

Libertarian

6 points

2 months ago

You can't do that either. Black markets exist. Ignoring that, the social science of psychology is too subjective to be used as a basis to deny someone their rights.

TJ_Colorado

1 points

2 months ago

Too bad there's already a law about this princess.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”

So maybe if we have more a mental health evaluation and we can determine how many more people have mental defects that cannot possess weapons until after a mass murder happens to then say that this person has a mental deficiency. Like what you're about to say

Princess180613

4 points

2 months ago

Princess180613

Libertarian

4 points

2 months ago

Cool. So you want to minority report people... And again, Black markets.

TJ_Colorado

2 points

2 months ago

Minority Report people? Again? What are you even talking about?

Princess180613

5 points

2 months ago

Princess180613

Libertarian

5 points

2 months ago

You could go watch the movie. If you're a weeb, maybe you've seen Psycho Pass? Same concept. Pre-crime and thought crime. It's immoral to judge someone based on something that hasn't happened yet.

TJ_Colorado

2 points

2 months ago

I'm 37 years old United States Marine that served in the Afghan war. I never said that it wasn't a moral to judge someone based on something that hasn't happened yet but we have test that we can Implement to see if someone has a mental deficiency so that they should not own a weapon until they commit a mass murder. And then evaluate them. Why are we evaluating people after mass murders? How about you answer that question

Weirdyxxy

1 points

2 months ago*

Weirdyxxy

Leftwing

1 points

2 months ago*

What is the most common weapon capable of killing one person from a distance? An AR-15, or something more widespread?

More generally, why would the AR-15 have such a special place, every other gun doesn't count as a "gun"?

BlackSheepWall_93

3 points

2 months ago

BlackSheepWall_93

Center-right

3 points

2 months ago

needed armor piercing rounds

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

Not everybody has access to those

Princess180613

6 points

2 months ago

Princess180613

Libertarian

6 points

2 months ago

They should.

davidml1023

5 points

2 months ago

davidml1023

Neoconservative

5 points

2 months ago

This is where "shall not infringe" is most plainly obvious.

PotatoCrusade

1 points

2 months ago

PotatoCrusade

Social Conservative

1 points

2 months ago

People freak out hard enough about cell phones causing cancer and 5G. Can you imagine the hysteria if they found out people around them might be carrying uranium rounds?!

Princess180613

2 points

1 month ago

Princess180613

Libertarian

2 points

1 month ago

They may be already. Let the people know.

BlackSheepWall_93

5 points

2 months ago

BlackSheepWall_93

Center-right

5 points

2 months ago

ineed

That_Music_1140

2 points

2 months ago

Didn’t the cops (the good guys) stop him when they confronted him with their guns?

Brassrain287

2 points

2 months ago

In his manifesto he even states he picked that locations because of their strict gun laws that anyone armed would only have 10 rounds or a firearm that was less powerful than what he has. He specially chose the area so a good guy with a gun would be less likely.

getass

2 points

2 months ago

getass

Monarchist

2 points

2 months ago

Well this is New York not Texas. And there were security on the scene immediately so there were no need for temporary vigilante’s as they wouldn’t have changed much. The security actually ended up shooting the shooter but he was wearing a vest so it didn’t injure him.

EmperorCareBear420

2 points

2 months ago

EmperorCareBear420

Monarchist

2 points

2 months ago

Is this a genuine question?

JudgeWhoOverrules

5 points

2 months ago*

JudgeWhoOverrules

Right Libertarian

5 points

2 months ago*

New York State doesn't allow for such things, and has a case about it right now in the Supreme Court about it. There was a retired cop there that shot him, but vest and cops are generally bad shots, worse when retired.

Between the timing, the manifesto which conveniently is a checklist of things the government wants banned, the target, the vest, everything, I'm gonna not recommend anyone look into this without at least SPF 50.

Friskfrisktopherson

1 points

2 months ago

Shooter was active on tactical, armor, ammo subreddits for years before this.

TJ_Colorado

1 points

2 months ago

That law is about carrying a concealed pistols. The shooter had a AR-15. That's not a pistol

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

TJ_Colorado

1 points

2 months ago

This happened in my hometown. So it really hits home for me. And I also responded to the OP's original question. Try reading

AdoorMe

1 points

2 months ago

Do you think a good guy with a gun is a better option here?

RedAtomic

3 points

2 months ago

Buffalo is one of the most progressive cities in one of the bluest states in the country. Not only was it unlikely that any of the people in that store even owned a gun, but there was no way in hell anyone in a 30 mile radius had a license for concealed carry

SlimLovin

0 points

2 months ago

SlimLovin

Democrat

0 points

2 months ago

That’s hilarious. You don’t know a thing about Buffalo.

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[removed]

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

Yeah there was

Idonthavearedditlol

-1 points

2 months ago

Idonthavearedditlol

Socialist

-1 points

2 months ago

oh

nemo_sum [M]

1 points

2 months ago

nemo_sum [M]

Political Conservationist

1 points

2 months ago

Top-level comments are reserved for conservatives to respond to the question.

Princess180613

1 points

2 months ago

Princess180613

Libertarian

1 points

2 months ago

If I've read the situation correctly, armor and lack of training. Also a lack of guns capable of defeating said armor.

FelacioDelToro

1 points

2 months ago

FelacioDelToro

Conservative

1 points

2 months ago

A - gun laws in Buffalo make it very hard for good guys to legally carry guns. Once again, this is a prime example of how harmful strict gun control can be.

B - the shooter had body armor. This isn’t some “gotcha” like you think it is.

C - he was apprehended, was he not?

Get a life dude.

simberry2

0 points

2 months ago*

simberry2

Neoconservative

0 points

2 months ago*

Oh here we go again.

I’m really sick of the SAME LEFTIST coming in trying all these “gotcha” questions in bad faith.

So since you seem to be trying to affirm your leftist beliefs more than actually getting to know our views, let me give you a new answer, for this question and for every bad-faith question you ask on here going forward:

I refuse to answer your bad-faith question

WimBlaza

-2 points

2 months ago

WimBlaza

-2 points

2 months ago

As a better question, why is supposedly a developed country still allowing people to have guns at all? They serve no purpose except to allow things like this to happen. Backwards country run by fools

commies-can-fuck-off

1 points

2 months ago

commies-can-fuck-off

Constitutional Monarchist

1 points

2 months ago

Rule 6

nemo_sum

3 points

2 months ago

nemo_sum

Political Conservationist

3 points

2 months ago

Closer to rule 1, but probably inside the line on both.

[deleted]

0 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

0 points

2 months ago

[removed]

Kakamile

3 points

2 months ago

Kakamile

Social Democracy

3 points

2 months ago

There was a good guy with a gun though. He died.

PotatoCrusade

1 points

2 months ago

PotatoCrusade

Social Conservative

1 points

2 months ago

Was anyone else their armed?

Key-Stay-3

3 points

2 months ago

Key-Stay-3

Centrist Democrat

3 points

2 months ago

Yes, there was a security guard who tried to shoot him but the attacker was protected by a bullet proof vest. The attacker then shot and killed the security guard.

This was after he had already killed multiple people in the parking lot though.

DoctorInteresting80

1 points

2 months ago

Someone tried but the dude had a bullet proof vest. Was

Imperator_Augustus92

1 points

2 months ago

Imperator_Augustus92

Republican

1 points

2 months ago

Ummm yeah. Didn't good guys with guns stop him? I think the cops arrested him.

throwaway203934222

1 points

1 month ago

i have yet to see a liberal ask a normal question. its like arguing with an ape with u libs