135
The post said early indications suggest it could be a "targeted incident" but that information remains limited.
that sort of shooting happens all the time in other countries
Every time we think the latest tragedy might garner the political will to change something, nothing happens. This will be no different.
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'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)
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.
Some of us live in rural areas and use guns almost daily to defend crops and livestock from pests and predators. How should those people "adjust"?
By defend crops do you mean kill things? There can be exceptions for specific people to own specific types of guns that would make mass shootings impossible. Eg. If it is a heavy rifle that takes minutes to reload.
By defend crops do you mean kill things?
Yes. White-tailed deer are invasive, eat crops, and cause many single-car accidents in rural areas where emergency services can take 30-45 minutes to respond, if you have cell service to call them. It's very desirable to hunt them during mating season to control their population. Wild boar are also invasive, eat crops, and leave giant ruts that damage equipment.
There can be exceptions for specific people to own specific types of guns that would make mass shootings impossible.
There is an unfortunately significant overlap between guns ideal for completely legitimate and responsible purposes and guns ideal for committing horrible atrocities.
Eg. If it is a heavy rifle that takes minutes to reload.
Hunting often involves walking long distances into remote areas. For this reason, hunters often desire the lightest rifle they can find that will get the job done. In fact, one of the reasons the AR-15 was so popular when it was introduced to the civilian market (as a hunting rifle with a 5-round magazine, btw) is because it was two pounds lighter (six pounds instead of eight) than the Ruger Mini 14, which was the most popular hunting rifle at the time.
Also, hunting often involves putting yourself in the same areas bears and other dangerous animals call their home. Not being prey is the first rule of hunting. The type of rifle you're suggesting would offer significant challenges to a hunter who needed to defend themselves from a wild animal.
How do farmers in other countries do it? Lots of countries have farming without needing ar15s.
You build a road through the middle of the forest, then complain that deer go on the road? So the solution is to kill more deer. You're so American.
If you're unable to comprehend the importance of controlling the populations of invasive species, this conversation can serve no purpose.
There is nothing quite so uniquely irritating as someone who is intensely critical of something they know very little about.
Violence against animals leads to violence against people. You can't avoid that. If invasive species need to be controlled it should be done by authorities who have access to guns while doing their duty. Not random farmers killing at will.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(7 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.
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.
Until the root causes and societal factors that contribute to violence are addressed, any ban serves only to disarm and criminalize what is an otherwise perfectly law-abiding citizenry.
We do need to harden the border, much more than we need to control guns. Immigrants coming in from shit hole country are usually the ones who do this. We need to be damn sure none of those filth get over the sierras.
Is that so? Do you have any data to support this claim?
Yeah, why's that matter, and why would i dig it up for american filth?
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.
You must be confusing a CCW (Concealed Carry of a Weapon) permit with an FFL (Federal Firearms License).
A CCW is obtainable by almost anyone who is over 21 and not a convicted felon, and allows you carry a concealed weapon, such as a handgun or a knife with a blade longer than 3 inches.
An FFL is obtainable by business-owners who pass extensive background checks with the ATF and allows them to legally sell firearms to other people.
A CCW can be obtained over a weekend or two. An FFL takes months of paperwork, interviews, background checks, and filing fees.
If you don't believe me, please go try and obtain an FFL. I'd be very interested to learn how far you get.
I'm well aware of the difference. FFLs aren't just for actual business owners. Plenty of private collectors run a "business" of reselling firearms specifically in order to make obtaining a FFL a lot easier. It also is possible to show that you are qualified for one with previous military or law enforcement service, as a firearms instructor, or simply with enough determination and charm around your local police academy.
I think they might be referring to a lower-tier FFL.
CCW doesn’t award you legal suppressors and large capacity magazines in CA.
Correct. To my knowledge, there is no legal way to possess a suppressor or high capacity magazine in California, under their current laws. In (almost) all other states, high capacity magazines are not regulated, and suppressors can be legally obtained with a $200 tax stamp and NFA form.
I'm not from California, so I'm not as familiar with their laws, but I find the idea of an easy loophole to suppressor ownership very difficult to believe.
I never said it was "easy". It's not. As the other guy pointed out, it's a months long, expensive, and personally invasive process to obtain a FFL. That being said, certain individuals are highly motivated to go through the process anyways. My original point was that the entire process becomes streamlined so long as you don't mind presenting yourself as a conservative. I've heard of people being turned down for a years old social media post, but somehow the redhats don't run into the same issues.
My original point was that the entire process becomes streamlined so long as you don’t mind presenting yourself as a conservative.
Well I'm glad you clarified then. For a minute there, I thought your original point was that an FFL was an easy loophole to legal machine gun and suppressor ownership in California. Since the ATF regulates FFLs, how does one "present themself as a conservative" during a presumably remote, paper-driven process?
There is at least one in person interview with a representative of the ATF. In my neck of the woods, that means someone down at the local sherrif department.
evidently, more
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
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
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
135 points (100.0% liked)
news
299 readers
591 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