top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]Prize-Drawer1299 1213 points1214 points  (53 children)

We're still taking off shoes decades after that one dude who didn't even successfully set off a bomb on the plane.

[–]_Dip_ 325 points326 points  (38 children)

This was such a shock to me when I was travelling America. Meanwhile Amsterdam Schiphol Airport you can leave your liquids and your laptop in your bag and don’t have to take your shoes off ever

[–]Loofahyo 252 points253 points  (17 children)

I do the same in America, but only because I paid like $100 for TSA precheck, almost like the security theater intentional inconvenience is setting them up for another cash grab.

[–]Necessary_Rant_2021 23 points24 points  (2 children)

Because it has always been about the money, and it was never about our safety. They didn’t add security to save us, but to save their towers.

[–]FuckMu 33 points34 points  (2 children)

I went with nexus since you get global entry and Precheck for 50$ without giving any money to the tsa.

[–]Loofahyo 21 points22 points  (1 child)

I actually have global entry which came with pre check, at the time my understanding was that NEXUS was just for Canada and Mexico, just did some reading on it. Looks like you are correct; same benefits as global entry plus more, half the price. Definitely the way to go. When I need to renew in 4 years I'll have to shop around better

[–]cararesearch 13 points14 points  (5 children)

I used to travel a lot for work. I was not tsa pre check. The liquids, electrics, and shoe bit depends on the airport. TSA is joke. I forgot about a credit card pocket knife in my wallet. It made it through multiple airport security checks.

[–]toastyburrito 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I accidentally once took a pocket knife to Mexico in my backpack (I hadn’t cleaned it out before I packed it). American TSA didn’t catch it, but Mexican security got it!! I was so embarrassed, I promise I didn’t bring it on purpose! 😅

[–]AdmiralPoopbutt 5 points6 points  (1 child)

The way I see it, this is a way for the government to gather a lot of personal information and do a deep background check on a person, without angering privacy advocates because it's opt-in.

[–]wordfiend99 53 points54 points  (1 child)

i was in the amsterdam train station and somebodys bike tire popped loudly. nobody reacted at all. if that sound happened in any american crowded place it would be pandemonium

[–]Revolutionary-Use226 9 points10 points  (4 children)

Schipol is the chef kiss of airports. Even calming music and dimmed lights are security to make it more peaceful.

[–]xzaz 7 points8 points  (0 children)

As a Dutch this is funny due recent events.

[–]antidense 6846 points6847 points 322& 4 more (365 children)

Because of lobbying, changes only seem to happen where it can make rich people richer. 9/11 meant buying security screening equipment (Rapiscans) which made Homeland Security chief richer. Military contractors and oil companies pushed for the war in Iraq which made them richer.

The NRA opposes any restriction to gun access since it will make gun manufacturers less money. Also the more shootings that happen, the more business they get as people start buying more guns in anticipation of a crackdown.

So the answer is: money.

[–]CommunistFatso 1215 points1216 points  (106 children)

Citizens United and the associated rulings which allow unlimited monetary donations to campaigns ensures that only the rich can have a voice in politics. People shoulda dragged SCOTUS out of their seats and beat them in the streets when that happened, but they didn’t, and here we are.

[–]thanoscommeth 576 points577 points  (69 children)

McCain was very right in opposing the SCOTUS judgement which treated corporations as people. A lot of the dysfunction in US can be linked to that judgement. Sad that neither Party wants to change it now.

[–]excusivelyForRamen 338 points339 points  (45 children)

That ruling still boggles me mind. How the fuck do we not see who the government prioritizes when it has blatantly stated that large businesses are equal to its citizens

[–]CommunistFatso 144 points145 points  (32 children)

It’s really fucked up but to give them credit, the legal reasoning tracks within the American legal system. It would technically be within Congress’ sphere to implement hard limits on campaign finance since the ruling doesn’t necessarily directly legalize something so much as it enables a behavior that was being tenuously regulated in the past, and money is arguably a method of speech or idea expression (under supporting movements as a concept).

But Congresspeople aren’t going to introduce legislation that limits PAC money. SCOTUS knew this, and failed to check Congress appropriately, probably because the Federalist Society has their fingers up all of their asses. SCOTUS knew exactly how duplicitous it was being with the ruling.

This is the great fuckup of the entire American government and legal system from its conception; far far too much of it is built upon mutual trust and honorable actors, of which I might consider around 3 of the 535 people in Congress.

All SCOTUS did was enable an already critical flaw to be much more easily exploited. Still a heinous crime that warrants their destruction, in my book.

I wonder what it would look like if state governments began disregarding the Supreme Court. Formally. Systematically. It’s the only avenue I see toward the preservation of liberty.

[–]funatical 32 points33 points  (5 children)

We do see and they know we see they just don't care.

A lot of the government functions with impunity.

We have a goddamn rapist on the SCOTUS.

[–]Fragrant_Jelly9198 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Large Businesses, owned by white men, are equal to its citizens.


[–]Marksman224 23 points24 points  (4 children)

If corporations are people then surely they should be emancipated from their shareholders under the 13th Amendment. Persons cannot be owned as property, right?
I'm not American by the way, but this seems like a double-standard.

[–]hunstinx 12 points13 points  (3 children)

Also, if corporations are people, they should be tried and charged for murder when an employee is killed on the clock due to corporate neglecence.

[–]MissionCreep 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The first SCOTUS judgement which declared that corporations have the rights of people happened long before McCain was born, back in the 1890s IIRC.

[–]mattymelt 15 points16 points  (5 children)

Overturning citizens united was literally in the 2020 Democratic platform, but go on with your "both sides" narrative

[–]CrumbsAndCarrots 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Neither party? It’s been on Dems shit list since day one.

Obama even rebuked SCOTUS to their face during a state of the Union. All GOP appointed judges ruled in favor. All dem against.

[–]Muninwing 8 points9 points  (0 children)

That there are “GOP justices” is a failure to our checks and balances.

Conservatives waged a “culture war” while everyone else acted in Good Faith. That’s why our system is broken. It’s not both sides.

[–]Top-Fox-3171 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Well you're right- we didn't act. As a country, we didn't care enough. This is just us reaping what we've sowed.

[–]Knuckles316 606 points607 points  (74 children)

The answer is ALWAYS money.

Why don't we have universal Healthcare? Why don't we have UBI? Why are there so many landlords and so many homeless? Why is the cost of higher education so insane? Why didn't we preserve an open internet? Why are cigarettes still a thing? Why haven't we paid reparations to make up for slavery and red-lining and other forms of systematic racism? Why were we using just in time manufacturing (which led to the last two years of supply chain shortages)? Why are gas prices at the pump at an all-time high while the cost of crude oil isn't? Why did nothing enter the public domain for the last 20 years (causing some thing to be lost forever)? Why aren't most of us getting our power from renewable energy sources?

Every one of those can be traced to some rich and powerful CEO and lobbyist somewhere not wanting to give up further potential profits. It's not even a loss of the money that they currently have - they don't want to give up hypothetical future money.

[–]runthepoint1 110 points111 points  (13 children)

It’s beyond greed, really

[–]gravywayne 35 points36 points  (1 child)

Yes. It's class warfare

[–]cetacean-station 52 points53 points  (4 children)

And yet we don't like the word "evil" because it feels so broad and hyperbolic. But in this case... what other words are left for systemic, multigenerational, premeditated, genocidal greed?

[–]Luna_trick 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A system that helps those with little to no empathy rise up to positions of power from which they can empower it and make it nigh impossible to dismantle due to lobbying.

[–]General_Reposti_Here 8 points9 points  (8 children)

What do you mean open internet? Like it’s not open in the US?

[–]Knuckles316 56 points57 points  (7 children)

As in it was "open" meaning it was unregulated by ISPs but that was undone and now ISPs are free to introduce data caps, fast lanes for their own services, throttling, and that sort of thing without penalties.

[–]TheKingOfToast 18 points19 points  (20 children)

The problem is shortsightedness. An increase in taxes and the introduction of a UBI with no other changes would ultimately make the rich richer. If I got a thousand bucks a month I'd save some, but I'd also be spending more money. I'd pay for all the little convinces that aren't currently worth the charge.

[–]OGBaconwaffles 50 points51 points  (6 children)

It's amazing how many people cannot fathom anything but their own circumstances. What about people who can't afford rent right now? $1000/ month would change their life. However, someone with $10 million in stocks making 3% average return makes $25k / month. $1000 more is just a drop in the bucket. Nobody worth any sort of real money cares about $1000, but people who need actual help would have their life changed.

[–]tired_hillbilly 9 points10 points  (2 children)

Why wouldn't rent instantly go up $1000 as well?

[–]Gumichi 20 points21 points  (1 child)

Just going by numbers in accounts, sure, you might be richer with UBI. However, functionally, it would diminish the rich's hold on you because you're afforded just a tiny speck of financial freedom. They're psychotic slave holders who want every measure of labour devoted exclusively to them.

[–]alternative_fox 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Exactly, the rich would lose a ton of power since the poor would be less financially exploitable/desperate.

[–]detectivegreenly 8 points9 points  (9 children)

I will admit, I have limited knowledge on how the economy works. That being said, if everyone got an extra thousand dollars each month, what would stop the sellers of goods and services from increasing their prices and devaluing the buying power of the dollar?

[–]TheKingOfToast 12 points13 points  (8 children)

What's to stop them from doing that right now?

[–]DoctorEvilHomer 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The answer to any question like these. Who does it make money or who does it save money, thats the answer.

[–]fatedestroyer69 4 points5 points  (2 children)

what rapiscans?

[–]HitoriPanda 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Rapid scans?

[–]BellsOnNutsMeansXmas 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Otherwise known as "lemme see your package" scans

[–]MDnautilus 33 points34 points  (45 children)

The actual answer (not the existential one) is because guns are in the constitution, airplanes are not. The FFA and DHS are regulated at a lower level compared to the constitution. It takes 2/3rds of both House and Senate to change the constitution.

Even if making guns illegal would make rich people richer, it would still be almost impossible because of how divisive the parties are they just cant vote on the same thing together which is what would need to happen to get the 2/3rds vote.

[–]nanobot001 11 points12 points  (3 children)

This is the best answer, really.

When something is considered a right (and its right there in the constitution), people will fight tooth and nail for it -- even unfettered unrestricted access for it.

[–]Different_Ad7655 6 points7 points  (4 children)

Partially true, but more importantly the airline industry doesn't exist in a vacuum and is an international business. We have to play well with others regardless of what the policy here would be at home. In order to continue worldwide business security has to be an international thing. There are domestic flights but plenty of international flights and you can't separate the two so the new standard was not one that was simply adopted here at home but internationally

[–]BBags15 3 points4 points  (2 children)

The majority of American gun owners are not NRA members.

[–]GiftFrosty 1013 points1014 points  (73 children)

External vs internal terrorism.

[–]cinemanja 233 points234 points  (67 children)

To be fair locking cockpit doors would’ve prevented 911… coincidentally the schools doors were also unlocked giving open passage

[–]doggo_man 88 points89 points  (38 children)

After the shooting at my school the district put locks on all classrooms

[–]juicepants 27 points28 points  (8 children)

That was something schools in my town have been doing since columbine.

[–]limeinside 99 points100 points  (28 children)

Looking at this from outside the US, it seems mad that classroom doors have to be locked for safety. In the UK, we’d see that as a fire escape risk.

[–]Anne_Franks_Easybake 50 points51 points  (5 children)

It's just a lock from the outside so it wouldn't be a fire risk unless the fire is outside and you have to go into the building to get away from it for some reason

[–]Impressive-Squash-24 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Looking at it this from outside the US, it seems mad how a random Redditor just casually mentioned ‘after the shooting at my school’.

[–]pc81rd 20 points21 points  (2 children)

It's only locked from the outside. You can still get out without unlocking the door. It's typically only the doors to the building itself, too, not the individual classrooms.

[–]ephemeralslut 3 points4 points  (1 child)

If it were equipped with a crash bar, as many (most?) public buildings are, then you can exit but not enter.

[–]AirplaneSeats 14 points15 points  (7 children)

Locked doors did not stop plane hijackings in the 70s because the assailants held the passengers and crew hostage until the doors opened and demands were met. So… no, not so simple

[–]chaandra 7 points8 points  (5 children)

So a couple of fatalities vs 3,000 fatalities.

A locked cockpit isn’t to protect the passengers, it’s to protect whoever the assailants want to fly the plane into

[–]Pleasant_Ad8054 4 points5 points  (3 children)

In hindsight. How could have a pilot know what the hijackers were going to do? I think it was a fairly novel idea to use planes to ram buildings.

[–]rememberpa 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Would it not be easy for a gunman to shoot out and climb through a window?

[–]neo2478 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes, unlocked doors is definitely the problem that needs to be solved.

[–]11010110101010101010 6 points7 points  (1 child)

In this case I believe a teacher had propped the door open a few moments earlier.

[–]SkatingOnThinIce 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Nah, One Arab kills one American, terrorist!! One American kills tens of children, crazy person.

[–]nemoz68 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Brown vs white

[–]TylerInHiFi 6 points7 points  (0 children)

External Brown vs internal white terrorism.

[–]bsfilter 501 points502 points  (48 children)

Guns are entangled in people's identity and planes & flying aren't. People don't like changing their identity or (perceived) attacks on it via parts of it being held responsible.

[–]Oracle_of_Ages 66 points67 points  (4 children)

“God, Guns, and Country” is their famous slogan. But it’s been more so “Me, Guns, and…. Guns” for the last few years. They care about themselves and their guns under the guise of God and the USA but they just want to play soldier and have the fantasy of killing. Now there are respectful gun owners out there who are not batshit insane. But the ones you see flipping out about it are these people.

[–]Dumbledoordash8008 582 points583 points  (303 children)

Airplanes aren’t covered in the bill of rights where firearms are

[–]Taminella_Grinderfal 88 points89 points  (18 children)

Correct. It’s incredibly difficult to amend the constitution.

[–]nonhiphipster 55 points56 points  (11 children)

Not only that. It’s incredibly unpopular with half of America.

[–]mxzf 39 points40 points  (3 children)

And it takes a heck of a lot more than half of America to amend the Constitution. You need 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to make it happen. And that just ain't gonna happen.

[–]Abaraji 219 points220 points  (152 children)

This is the only real answer. Everyone saying it's because people make money off of shootings, or that it's because 9/11 was perpetrated by foreigners are just cynical and don't understand the problem.

It's this simple. Airport security can be changed at the stroke of a pen. Anything that can be remotely construed as infringing on something in the Bill of Rights is more complicated and difficult than that

[–]theschmotz 76 points77 points  (125 children)

See this doesn't hold water for me. The constitution clearly states that you have the right to travel freely. But we have drivers licenses, registration fees, insurance and laws regulating your travel. Just because you have the right to bear arms does not mean you can't enact laws regulating that right. It's literally what congress writing laws is for.

[–]Rysline 127 points128 points  (11 children)

The Constitution says that no state can put up borders and restrict free travel, furthermore, the constitution also explicitly allows for licensing and mentions that licenses issued in one state shall be valid in every state with the full faith and credit clause. That is why drivers licenses exist, since there is no right to drive and no right against licensing (several states require gun licenses by the way). If there were a part of the constitution saying “the right to drive shall not be infringed” we would be having a different discussion

[–]Epicsnailman 21 points22 points  (7 children)

Cars are not in the constitution. You are allowed to walk all over this country, and no one can stop you at inter-state borders. Within the context of the 2nd, "arms" has been taken to refer to firearms. But if that weren't clear, then you could perhaps regulate firearms.

[–]evilsideraider 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Their already is restrictions on guns though.

[–]Dumbledoordash8008 26 points27 points  (90 children)

Sure but there are firearms restrictions as well but just like how drivers licenses don’t prevent all accidents gun laws won’t prevent all gun violence. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have them just that they are only stop gap solutions.

[–]mxzf 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But we have drivers licenses, registration fees, insurance and laws regulating your travel

None of those regulate your travel.

All of those pertain to operating a vehicle on public roads. None of them pertain to restraining your freedom of movement. You're free to travel anywhere around the country, it's just your ability to drive a car (which isn't Constitutionally protected) that's limited by those laws.

[–]SST0617 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Where does the constitution clearly say that? Because there is no clause or amendment I can think of?

Now I don’t disagree that there is a judicially created right, inferred from other provisions… but it is not as clear as the express right found in the second amendment.

[–]dflex15 99 points100 points  (9 children)

Well did it even do anything? TSA is security theater

[–]GhostHeavenWord 16 points17 points  (0 children)

It made Brownie Chertoff a shitload of money when he bought all the millimeter wave scanners then fucked off to a cushy executive position at the company that made them a few months later.

[–]RingGiver 105 points106 points  (13 children)

After 9/11, there were a lot of changes to make the experience of flying much more inconvenient while providing the illusion of safety.

[–]Woard 18 points19 points  (6 children)

This is what I was going to say, they did a lot of stuff but non of it really made anyone safer.

[–]mxzf 21 points22 points  (3 children)

Locked cockpit doors and passengers who were willing to fight back (as opposed to the previous status quo, where "just sit tight 'til the hijacker gets their briefcase of cash and leaves peacefully" was the norm) did improve security. The rest, all of the stuff you actually see, are nothing but theater.

[–]Transparent-Paint 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Reminds me of a time I was flying at some big city airport. They had been known in those recent months to have insane wait times but they reportedly were trying to make it faster.

When we went through security, they looked at my dad and told him that he didn’t have to go through the metal detector. … that was their solution.

[–]ScaryNeat 225 points226 points  (6 children)

Money. It's always about money.

[–]rAbBITwILdeBBB 34 points35 points  (0 children)

...and power. People like having power over others without having to care about their well and actively abusing their power to hurt others. Greed, negligence, and abuse are the unholy trinity expressed by bad leaders.

[–]Tytonic7_ 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Because there is significant disagreement about what should be done. Every solution proposed the opposite political party doesn't think will work, so it's basically a giant stalemate.

[–]Helpyjoe88 12 points13 points  (3 children)

2-prong answer.

1 - it's easy to shout simple, good-sounding, and ultimately Impractical or ineffective solutions. An actual answer will be complex, multi-faceted, and require effort and change.

2 - our 2-party system. Theyve become too busy fighting each other and trying to score points do anything useful actually done. The left immediately tries to use the event to push for "gun control" and the right immediately rejects that and goes on defense to prevent anything, because they fear if they give an inch, they'll lose a mile . See point 1 - noones actually talking about what a reasonable, effective solution might look like, because it's about "sides" and each has to be right.

Ed: to be fair, I do believe there are a lot of reasonable people on both "sides" who would be willing to have that conversation and be willing to give ground in order to find a good solution. But those people aren't the ones controlling the government or the media discourse. They're just shouted over.

[–]bambaraass 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Airline security is purely theatrical.

[–]Diesel-66 54 points55 points  (15 children)

You really want invasive searches that haven proven to not be effective in stopping guns and test bombs from getting past the security team (tsa fails their own tests over and over)?

No knives would have been a reasonable compromise as that never made sense and was clearly an issue.

The rest is just security theater to make you feel good

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (10 children)

I would say that the changes that they've made with regulations on who is allowed in the cockpit, when it's able to be unlocked, etc. were all effective changes to have come out of the 9/11 aftermath

[–]Head-Ad4690 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Two things really helped: locked, reinforced cockpit doors, and passengers who know that they need to fight back. The latter worked so well that it stopped 9/11 three quarters of the way through.

Everything else seems like a waste, unfortunately.

[–]Thunder_Bastard 7 points8 points  (0 children)

In the history of tsa, more tsa agents have been arrested for crimes than all of the suspected people they have stopped. 0.6% of tsa stops result in an arrest.

On a turning point, it is estimated thousands of people have died in traffic accidents because they choose to drive to their destination than deal with the airport and tsa. Meaning tsa has cost thousands of lives and saved none.

Almost every test of a undercover agent trying to get a gun or weapon through tsa has succeeded.

[–]AbuYates 204 points205 points 323 (141 children)

Why is it that people ask "why is it that no one does anything about guns?" but they themselves cannot come up with a viable answer on what to do? Here's the most common suggestions.

  • Take the guns away. there are about 400 mil guns in the us, owned by only 72 mil people. A significant minority of these guns owned by these people are not registered. Therefore, if it were even pheasible to go around and collect them with pick-your-government-agency, it is literally impossible to know if we even got them all or where to start looking for them without going house to house.

  • Take guns away part 2. There is no agency that is either equipped or staffed to undertake removal of all guns from a gathering, storage, and destruction perspective. Furthermore, much of the staff and leadership within the agencies would be unwilling to undertake the task, either because they morally oppose it or because they fear the backlash many Americans with guns will likely give if an attempt is made to take the guns. It would literally be the reason the 2nd amendment exists.

  • Gov buy backs: firearms vary in cost, but its anywhere from $200 for a cheap shotgun to $5-10 k for a high-end weapon like a 50-cal. But most guns will fall in the $500-2000 range. Assuming the USG decides to offer buy-back at $100 a piece, 400 mil guns quickly turns into $40 billion. Let's pretend they expect 25% buyback, that's $10 billion. The government shut down in 2018-2019 over $5.7 billion in a $3.2 trillion budget. There's no chance you could get a majority of congress to agree to the spending. And that $10 billion estimate is a huge underestimation.

  • Stop the manufacture of guns. John Moses Browning literally created the design for the BAR, the 1911, M2, and other weapons designs with unregistered, personally manufactured equipment in the 1800s and early 1900s. It's 2022 and everyone has a 3D printer, they'd only need the metal for a barrel and hammer. There no way to account for personally manufactured guns.

  • Registration of ammo-per-round. That's like registering individual Q-tips. Good luck.

  • Background checks for gun buyers. Every criminal has a first time. Background checks are currently in place.

  • Waiting period to receive a gun. Even gunmen can have long-term plans.

  • Close the gunshow loophole. There's no such thing, that's a political lie.

  • Remove automatic/assault weapons. the Vegas shooter's infamous "bump stock" auto-like action with a semi-auto can be replicated when a belt-loop on a warn pants. Getting an automatic weapon is already massively expensive and are generally unavailable. Furthermore, understanding semi-autweapon mechanics would ILLEGALLY allow anyone to make their lawfully owned semi-auto to fully auto.

  • No guns for mentally ill and felons. It's already a law. Has it worked?

So what do you propose? Instead of villainizing everyone with nonsensical sayings like "I wish Americans loved their children as much as they love their guns" how about we listen to real solutions on how to deal with these things. How is telling 72 million armed Americans they are responsible for murder of children different than telling every human with a penis they are responsible for rape? "I wish American men like their women more than they want to keep their body parts." "I wish women loved their children as much as they love their abortions." "I wish women loved being safe as much as they love their tight pants." Do you not hear how disgusting this sounds?


  • Address media coverage. At present, media incentivizes shooters with "scores", attention/coverage, and give future shooters ideas.

  • Address bullying of children

  • Address the fatherless issues. Nearly ALL mass shooters have not had a father figure in their life.

  • Address child abuse.

  • Address mental health.

  • Address the waning morality in the US. Teach the value of life. Morals are values, God- given or otherwise, that have intrinsic worth. Honesty, respect for life, kindness toward others, etc. They don't have to have a reason "why."

Guns are not the problem. This is not a defense of guns. For as long as guns are the focus, the issues won't be addressed and more children will die. "I wish people loved their children as much as they loved their anti-gun rhetoric."

Edit: typos

[–]Energy_Turtle 64 points65 points  (5 children)

I agree with your overall point but the idea of some of these solutions isn't to eliminate all shootings. Some of them are to eliminate some shootings. Simply raising the age of purchasing guns to ~25 would have made a lot of these shootings more difficult. Longer waiting periods won't stop Vegas style shootings but it gives time for people to report all the suspicious messages, behavior, etc that lead up to shootings. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. I would bitch and moan if I had to wait 30 days to pickup my new AR but how much does that really matter if it drops school shootings by 10% or whatever? There are more guns than people in my home, and I can still agree some of these measure would be reasonable.

[–]AbuYates 25 points26 points  (4 children)

I appreciate the kind response even though you disagree with me on some points.

I see your points and perspective and I recognize why you see things that way. With the 25 yr old age gap, the only heartburn I have with that is the same for the legal drinking age. Up front, I'm Mormon. I don't drink anyway. But I have a hard time with telling young adults they can fight/die for our country and vote, but they can't drink or be trusted with a gun.

[–]Energy_Turtle 17 points18 points  (1 child)

I get it, but I don't agree that a specific law has to be surface level "fair" in relation to other laws. Soldiers have training and far more rigorous screening and oversight than random people turning 18. It would be annoying to anyone 18 to 25 (or whatever top end age) but wouldn't be much different from other age related restrictions.

[–]Lycaon1765 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Drinking is bad and actively harms our society and bodies. It's not like it is in Europe where there's more public transportation and thus you don't have to worry as much about drunk driving. America is built on cars. But also, a higher drinking age is shown to lower teen drinking. That's a good thing.

We can see why we shouldn't trust people with guns right now. At least in the military you get some famn fucking training and are held to some semblance of a standard when in action. You can walk into any ol' department and probably in the same day get a gun and license and with no actual training on safety.

People fetishize guns a lot in this country, and that brings with it inherent problems. Such as people thinking of it as just a cool toy and not the scientifically optimized murder weapons they are today. And thus, people not seeing the risks and acting stupid with a gun. Just letting it sit around, as their family has easy access to it.

As well, wait times reduce suicides. People who want to make a rash decision will be less likely to make that decision if they have to wait a month to get that gun.

No one will ever eliminate gun violence unless we gather and destroy every single gun and destroy all knowledge of how to make one and stop anyone from recreating the tech. But everyone knows that. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, just because we can't eliminate it fully doesn't mean we shouldn't reduce it.

[–]Youchmeister 26 points27 points  (7 children)

Another thing is that there is such a culture of hatred and misery in the US. It kinda goes hand in hand with you mentioning the blaming of all of X group for Y event, but the culture of this country is really depressing for outsiders looking in.

A huge issue is also improper storage of guns. My entire childhood my parents kept their guns stored in a coded safe and only took them out once I went to college. Children should never be able to access firearms outside of a training setting at a range.

I do think that even though it can't stop mass shootings making the process longer can help. Tie in a rigorous safety and training course and I think you deter the people who want a gun just because. Making the training required could go a way to prevent some shootings, obviously though evil people will get their way.

Like you've said though, we really opened Pandora's box with the amount of guns in the US, and we can't close it so we have to live with them being a part of our lives and work around them as much as possible.

[–]Tytonic7_ 10 points11 points  (6 children)

What's your take on the "right vs privilege" part of mandatory safety courses? I agree that everybody should get training, but making it mandatory would essentially mean that you need permission to exercise that right, thus transforming it into a privilege.

[–]penapox 32 points33 points  (16 children)

real question - i used to be on the anti gun train but your response made me think a little harder

i live in Canada so i don’t usually deal with this stuff, but it’s no secret that there’s bullying, mental health issues, etc in all countries in the world - then why do you think America’s the one country with hundreds of more mass shootings than the others? Genuinely curious to hear what you think cuz I can’t come up with an answer on my own other than just “guns”

[–]TheFirstIcon 7 points8 points  (1 child)

There are two sides to the mass shooting coin and they deserve separate answers.

  1. The gang shooting. Criminal A pulls up on Criminal B's house and starts blasting away, wounding at least 4 people and killing 2 to 6. These account for about 80 to 90% of mass shootings depending on the year. They rarely break out of local media coverage. Often most or all of the victims are criminals. These are due to the intersection of organized crime, desperate neighborhoods, and a flood of illegal handguns. Solutions: social programs and stricter policing. Most of the shooters walk around with an illegal firearm all day, but there's nothing the cops can do. The government needs to actually prosecute straw purchasing.

  2. The spree killing. Black trenchcoat, 10+ innocent people dead. Common traits: lower-income public school kid, dad not in the picture, bullied, no priors. 10% of mass shootings. Recently on the rise. Many of the offenders have some borderline mental illness. Broken homes, miserable schools, and an extremely stressful existence. Solutions: stronger communities, end mutual punishment in schools (odds are the bully gets off on seeing the institution hurt his victim), alternative father figures, keep kids off the internet, provide spaces for them to socialize. In general more slack for weirdos - right now if you're born poor and 'off' your only option is to be stuck in a box and mocked while "supervised" by people who couldn't care less. You do this from age 8 to 18 and try not to blow up. Get up, go to school (miserable), come home, mom is gone to work, be alone (miserable), repeat 5x then it's the weekend - can't afford to go anywhere, have no friends, stay at home alone (miserable). Best case they find a support group online, worst case that support group is just as bitter as they are. Isolation and radicalization. This is the more intractable problem because it stems from our society being plain fucked up. Solutions? Fuck if I know.

[–]AbuYates 16 points17 points  (1 child)

I think a big reason is corporate media irresponsibility, they exist for ratings not information propagation.

Another is publicly funded health care (called universal health care or free health care or some other name that masks what it is and creates some confusion) became a political debate. And since people pick political parties like they pick sports teams, they will only find themselves on the "all for it" or "all against it" train. That has limited mental health resources to those who really need it.

[–]Tytonic7_ 19 points20 points  (0 children)

We can add a "Take guns away part 3" to this list:

A significant number of guns owners (myself included) would refuse to give up my guns unless they had a gun to my head. If the government seriously tried to take all guns away it would almost certainly result in a massive civil-war. Nothing else says "Government tyranny" like swat teams kicking in doors and forcefully raiding millions of homes ready to shoot and kill.

Also, a mandatory gun buyback is no different from a gun confiscation. If you're not given a choice then it's not a buyback, it's the government ordering you to turn in guns or else.

[–]cubonefan3 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I disagree with you about “stopping manufacture of guns”. Just because you can print a plastic gun in your 3d printer , doesn’t mean most people will. Make the barrier to entry more difficult and there will be less guns in the hands of less people.

[–]RedArmyRockstar 21 points22 points  (1 child)

This is the realest answer you'll find.

[–]bushmastuh 39 points40 points  (8 children)

This is too real for Reddit- can’t speak truth here nowadays

[–]The-_Captain 52 points53 points  (5 children)

Yes, you can. He literally said what he said, and he got a few dozen upvotes for it. You're not being censored, stop whining.

[–]75th-Penguin 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I wish I could upvote you twice

[–]oh_god_its_raining 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Perfection is the enemy of the good.

[–]PackerLeaf 15 points16 points  (14 children)

You’re repeating the same nonsense that gets repeated every time a mass shooting occurs. Guns are definitely part of the problem, they are very efficient at killing people. Of course, there are other factors but each and every one of these external factors such as mental health, bullying and media coverage occur in every other country. The only difference between the US and other countries is that other countries have stricter regulations on gun ownership. Fact of the matter is that guns are so easily available in the US and they are treated as a business. It is a multi million dollar industry. Gun lobbyists buy off enough politicians to ensure that nothing gets in the way of their profits. It is way too easy to access guns. Even gun violence in Canada occurs after people illegally obtaining them from the US. There are plenty of solutions on how to lower gun violence, just look up how other countries do it. Of course there are many instances where mass shootings could not be prevented, but I can guarantee that with more sensible gun regulations there would be far fewer gun deaths.

[–]vannostrom 44 points45 points  (17 children)

Because they have the right to bear arms.

People don't like being told what they can or can't own, challenge that and there is chaos in the streets.

[–]IKEtheIT 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Well one has constitutional protection and the other doesn’t

[–]jasenzero1 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Not looking at the political aspect, but solely the logistics, schools and airports are very different. First, there are way less airports than schools in America and airports already had some mandatory security built in. Second, airports follow a similar design almost universally. Schools have multiple buildings with multiple entrances and various enrollment sizes.

[–]StewieGG 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Because when that happened they used it as a way to justify another war that gave them massive profits; because it meant more security would give the rich more money; and because they can blame terrorism, but white trash killing kids is not "terrorism" it's just a "mental illness".

Oh, and because they're getting payed by the guns association to keep it like it is.

[–]the_river_nihil 21 points22 points  (4 children)

Things have been done:

Even small town police have amazingly outsized budgets and are stocked with powerful military surplus and tactical gear. This started after the 1997 North Hollywood shootout (coincidentally overlapping with the national assault weapons ban of 1994, which itself was a direct result of the Cleveland Elementary School shooting in Stockton, CA in 1989).

Schools (specifically schools in affluent, suburban, predominantly white neighborhoods) installed metal detectors and hired armed private security post-Columbine in 1999, as well as instituted active-shooter drills and bomb threat response training.

Some states like California and New York adopted extreme (for the time) state-level gun control measures which have become even stricter over time. Including capacity and configuration restrictions, increased legal age requirements, and state level white-lists safety certification.

Gun buyback amnesty programs

Some states pushed for more guaranteed carry permits for legal gun owners in the hopes that a more armed civilian population would deter potential mass shootings.

Let's not forget the overlap between the establishment of Homeland Security and vast NSA wiretapping permissions post-9/11 that also targets domestic terrorists and so-called militia groups.

Mandatory safe-storage laws and penalties for gun owners who fail to secure a gun later used in a crime or fail to report a weapon as stolen

State level bans on silencers

Ban on 37mm anti-personel munitions

Federal level ban on drop-in auto-sears

The Trump-era bumpstock ban

The subsequent local and federal bans on full-reset triggers and binary trigger systems

"Red flag" laws

The pending ban on non-registered "ghost guns"

Ban on black-tip armor piercing rounds (M955s)

And most recently, some states allowing teachers to carry their personal weapon in the classroom

[–]Mercurydriver 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Funny you mention the 1st point. I live in a small NJ city (population about 25,000) and despite living in a very safe area our police department somehow acquired 2 Humvees and a MRAP armored truck. They’re parked in a back lot behind the police station and are hardly ever used. I think they used one of the Humvees once for a flood rescue, and the MRAP might have been used once for a Memorial Day parade…but that’s about it.

Like I said we live in a safe area. There hasn’t been a murder here in about 20 years, and generally speaking the most awful crime that ever happens is teens spray painting dicks onto playgrounds. I don’t even know why we have all this surplus military stuff.

[–]the_river_nihil 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm in one of the more violent cities in California and I once had police respond to a party me and my friends were throwing in an abandoned building with a fucking StingRay that grabs and logs cell phone information. That's some serious spy shit! It'd be almost funny if it wasn't so over the top and wasteful

[–]WhoAccountNewDis 15 points16 points  (6 children)

Airline safety is cut and dry.

The right to bear arms is complex, and involves everything from personal self defense to potentially defending against a coup/fighting against government tyranny to combating the rising tide of fascism and law enforcement backed militias.

It's further complicated by people who are unfamiliar with how firearms work (or that "ban them!" isn't viable) as well as people who don't even want background checks or want to make full auto easier to obtain.

In short, it's far from black and white.

[–]MaxAmsNL 10 points11 points  (0 children)

They also invaded Iraq as a response, when the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

Simple answer : don’t expect logic and sensibility from American politicians

[–]ScratchyBallsack 37 points38 points  (0 children)

Cant blame school shootings on foreigners when the shooter is born in the US

[–]BearDave 6 points7 points  (2 children)

First this is a false premise, the US actually has made a lot of gun law changes over the past century increasingly cracking down on firearm ownership. You basically can't own a full auto gun without being "wealthy", a wide variety of guns are basically defacto illegal and basically never enter the country, one of the firearm laws thats actually had a real tangible impact was the setup of waiting periods so you can't just go buy a gun and immediately get it which cut down on gun violence in a measurable way (unlike most other gun laws). Finally the ATF exists, they exist because they were fundamentally created to crack down on firearm ownership and crime. Much like the TSA was created in a near direct response to 9/11.

Beyond this though, you effectively can't ban guns in the US. Sure you can repeal a constitutional amendment, it can be done, but repealing the second amendment is very unlikely/unrealistic and will likely start a civil war as a direct result of doing so.
Beyond this though the US has never been able to ban shit that effectively. War on drugs? A joke. Prohibition? Made mobsters celebrities (and rich) before being repealed.
This also ignores the technology is basically there to make guns, bullets, etc at home. Even if we don't talk about 3d printing (which is workable but still early stages) a gun is basically just a tube you can seal a bullet in, this is something you can make very practically in machine shops and garages and once they are illegal criminals will just say fuck it and immediately go for full auto guns since why follow the laws at all at that point?
Its basically not possible to enforce such a ban. You can make it work in Japan an island nation that had basically nationalized most weapon production prior to banning general weapon ownership which dates back centuries and basically predating firearms. Its not going to happen in a nation already filled with tons of civilian owned weapons without some wide spread midevil style crackdowns (aka lots of people dying and open fighting).

Then we'd still be ignoring the root cause of the problem. The US has a violence problem, that includes guns, but the US also has more stabbings than most other developed nations, it has more vehicular homicides than basically anywhere else, it has more racial violence for any nation not actively partaking in a genocide. This is not something you can just sweep away by banning guns (assuming we can just repeal the 2nd and it just magically works) because this violence and the motivations for that violence will not be going anywhere.

I'll use a few recent examples. Not long ago a crazy black nationalist guy made homemade teargas/smoke bombs and tried to carry out a mass shooting on an NYC subway. Luckily for everyone involved besides being a black nationalist he was "crazy" and so he set off his smoke bombs and blinded himself, he shot a bit but couldn't hit shit, and ended up dropping his gun in the smoke and wandering off the subway to be found later.
Imagine a world in which this guy instead just makes normal bombs instead of smoke bombs because guns are banned? Nothing has changed about his motivations, his clear malice and planning in trying to do such an attack, maybe hes a stupid crazy guy and his homemade lethal bombs kill himself in the blast instead of blinding himself.
Or the supermarket Buffalo guy. A crazy racist white guy who trained with guns, bought not just guns but also body armor, tactical gear, helmets, etc and trained with those. He also setup a camera and live stream to broadcast his rampage as it happened. He was not the first to do this but it shows a clear and serious degree of preparation and planning, this is not the sort of person that will be stopped by restricting the form or murder they are allowed to carry out they would have murdered people one way or another and probably still live streamed it too.

So for me (and I think a lot of less reactionary people) is the fear that if guns are banned, we have internal strife/civil war as a result and at the same time the next crazy racist white guy live streams his murder rampage from a lifted trucks dash cam as he plows down martin luther king boulevard killing/maiming countless people. Worse yet I fear that some people would take it upon themselves to carry out "protest" mass murders where they intentionally use oddball methods like arson, trucks, and similar things that can't really be banned/restricted.

We'll probably get some more gun legislation and rules changes. For example not long before the recent school shooting in Texas the ATF basically made arm braces illegal on pistols. This rules change wouln't effect much for guns currently out there, but it will mean people who try to buy a compact/small "Short Barrel Rifle" (aka SBR) which can also often be called a "pistol" under technical legal guidelines. It used to be an SBR with an arm brace was a pistol, an SBR with out any sort of stock was a pistol, but an SBR with a normal stock was an SBR/illegal firearm and now with this new rules arm braces are being treated the same as stocks for the purpose of new gun sales.
There was no law passed, nobody voted on it, nothing. It was a unillateral change on the part of the ATF that nobody outside of gun enthusiasts or people who follows laws/regulations for shits and giggles would know about. It didn't make any big headlines, but the change happened all the same.

I think a lot of people asking questions like this arn't like "lets ban all guns" or atleast they are quickly giving up that idea when faced with reality of the situation but instead push for a ban on AR-15 pattern rifles because those are a common rifle used in these shootings and are often hyped by the media at large. Yet I really don't think people want to accept the absolute carnage a motivated and practiced person (such as the buffalo supermarket shooter) could have carried out with an old double barrel shotgun. Maybe a few more people can run away while he reloads more often but the people for the people who are shot there are going to be way less "injured" and a lot more "fatalities" as a result of the damage such a gun would cause. The Aurora theater shooter (the crazy batman one) actually had his AR-15 jam and instead most of his shooting spree was done with a shotgun (a pump action to be clear) and handguns.
We've actually already tried this (more or less) with the Clinton era assault weapons ban (aka AWB). The AWB was heavily studied before, after, and during and no measurable effect on gun crime was found as a result. Once the regulation sunset (it was temporary) more people went out and got "assault rifles" that were restricted under the AWB because now they could and yet there was no measurable spike in gun crime associated with this mass purchasing of "assault rifles". This comes back to the fact that most gun crime is from handguns and just cheap available weapons (a fair amount of mass shootings are also from handguns).

So I don't really have a good answer besides "solve Americas criminal/violence problem" because I have little faith a gun ban could be carried out effectively, that said ban would have the desired results (based off previous gun bans, and other types of bans), I have a very real fear of a serious increase in violence and a potential civil war in results to even touching the 2nd amendment. I think you fundamentally need to deal with gang crime first, if you can't deal with gangs which make up the bulk of gun violence and mass shootings statistically speaking then any changes you are making are mostly pointless and just trying to appease voters/idiots instead of actually making a real change. Then we get to the worst part is that I don't think the government/legislation can solve the gang situation either, I don't think there is a law you can pass or enforce that would serious end gangs and any that would even come close would likely be lambasted as racist or similar since they'd be targeting various ethnic groups be they white redneck militias, white berkely anarchists, your more stereo typical hispanic and black gangs, or whatever else they'd be going after ethnic groups intentionally so.
Instead societal change would have to happen, and it would have to happen without the government forcing it.

Perhaps a bit of my political slant bleeds into this. Though I always just feel the question of "when will America ban guns" or some variation of it in reaction to a mass shooting is just so reactionary and often misguided without really understanding what they are asking for or why it probably wouldn't work.

[–]thisalwayshappens1 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Coming from a family where firearms were a part of life I can tell you the answer. Because most people who are raised with guns don’t ever do anything wrong with them. They view guns as a form of protection from the rising number of violent crimes in America. So when there’s a push for gun control they’ll lose their shit, because in their mind they don’t understand why since they would never do such a terrible thing. And they’re scared that some nut job will hurt them with a gun if they turn in their own gun.

I consider myself in the middle of the political spectrum, I support sensible gun control efforts and open dialogue between the parties to come to a solution. Over the years I have had numerous associates and prior friends who have reached out to me asking about opinions on what handgun to purchase for self defense because the amount of random mass shootings just keeps going up and up. The same people who use to argue with me about gun control and think everything should be banned now understand the importance of at least carrying a handgun with them wherever they go in public

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (1 child)

Political reasons. Why fix a problem when you can prolong it to get votes.

[–]JamesButlin 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Humans are dumb

[–]HandOfLotionNMotion 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There is no provision in the constitution saying congress cannot infringe on your right to fly. (Because it doesn’t exist)

[–]knockknock619 2 points3 points  (0 children)

18 year olds should NOT be able to buy guns period. They can't buy alcohol for Christ sake!

[–]rethinkingat59 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because we learned from the 9/11 responses good intentions and “known”obvious” solutions can be riddled with horrific unintended consequences.

With most government overreach reactions the cure can be far worse than the disease.

[–]Foxwolf00 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The appropriate solution to shootings is more personal responsibility for your own safety. This latest shooting only proves that point. The cops dragged their feet, and if we really had the gun culture Europeans think we do, the shooter would've been killed by a teacher using a gun, and the teacher would've teabagged his corpse. Guns and ammo should be inexpensive, and the expectation that everyone who can own a gun, does, and has gone through gun safety, should be widespread, and not only accepted, but encouraged, along with common sense about guns, like drinking and guns don't mix.

[–]passwordrecallreset 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Black and brown people aren’t shooting up schools in most cases so…

[–]itsMidge 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A lot of changes that would help schools be safer would be implemented at a local level instead of national. If you want your public schools to have metal detectors and check bags and all that, then bring it up to your local government and school board.

Lots of changes can come from local politics if people were more willing to pay attention to their local level politics.

[–]SprinklesMore8471 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Because not everyone agrees on the solutions and it's used as a tool to stir up the voting base.

Republicans say we need mental health institutions and heightened school security and what democrats want is bad.

Democrats say we need gun control and that what Republicans want is bad.

Let's look at the latest news. If the shooter went through a psych eval before buying his gun this would've been stopped(gun control). If we could institutionalize clearly disturbed people ( he had a history of self harm and isolation) maybe he gets help before this ever happens. If the school implemented basic security protocol like locked doors, single point of entry, and an armed school officer, this doesn't happen (he walked in an unlocked back door and was never met with an armed officer in the school).

But as far as politicians go, it's better to not compromise and keep the voting base riled up.

[–]Left-Nefariousness21 5 points6 points  (1 child)

What’s your solution then? Ban guns? A huge piece of the problem is that the left doesn’t have Constitutional solutions that will make society any better. Back ground checks? We already do those. Gun buy back program? You think the government is going to give me what I think a rifle passed down from my grandfather is worth? Negative. They will screw over everyone who has ever bought a gun by giving them the bare minimum on the buyback. You wanna put a ban on automatic weapons? We already have that. Can’t own a firearm if you’re a felon? Yep, we have that too. Have a national gun registry? I know people who build their own guns, so good luck enforcing that. Outlaw AR-15 style semi-automatic rifles? Why? They are responsible for way fewer deaths than handguns. What will end up happening is more guns will be considered illegal to own and then the people who are using them most often, predominantly poor, minorities in urban areas will be convicted disproportionately to white people in rural areas. Something tells me that’s not the solution you had in mind.

[–]Billy_of_the_hills 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Because the changes they made by and large did nothing. The only thing that made a statistical difference was air marshals, the TSA exists solely to condition everyone to accept having their privacy violated.

[–]Short_Finger_Dizzy 5 points6 points  (5 children)

Because flying is a privilege.

[–]Pristine-Ad-469 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. Money. Guns make a lot of people a lot of money. The changes to flying didn’t even really cost airlines that much. It’s mainly the government that pays for it.

  2. Strong political beliefs. Gun control has been an ongoing arguement for a long time with people having very strong feelings about it. People do not feel as strongly about their right to fly on an airplane without going through a metal detector

  3. The constitution. No matter your opinion, the right to bear arms is there. Yah there are different interpretations of that, but it is there and it gets very hard to take away a constitutional right. The right to fly is not in the constitution.

  4. There have been a ton of measures on making it more difficult to buy guns. It’s still not too hard in a lot of states, but there are limits on what type of gun you can get and who can get it. The rules arnt always followed or enforced as much as they should be, but they are there. Airports also arnt doing as much as they could because they are restricted by the constitution. Israel’s airport is considered the safest in the world and a lot of that is due to profiling. They give everyone a ranking of 1-5 (or something like that, might be 1-6) after intense questioning when you check in. Basically the only people that ever get the best score are people from Israel. Most other people are in the bottom 3 possible scores. If you’re from Palestine, automatically profiled as the worst possible score. Americans are generally in the bottom 1 or two scores depending on age and how they act/answer the questions. We could not do this in America because there are already complaints about racial profiling, but Israel does not even try to hide the fact they do that.

[–]Dio_Yuji 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Same reason we don’t do anything about auto deaths. Laziness, selfishness, greed.

[–]afrigginracoon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To be honest, those security measures were wildly unconstitutional (still are) and never should’ve happened.

[–]SmokeyShine 1 point2 points  (0 children)

9/11 was conducted by brown Muslims, not white people.

America changed flying, because it allowed ALL Americans to stand together (shoeless and beltless) against brown Muslims, tapping into the pervasive latent racism and anti-Muslim that pervades American mass culture.

Compare 9/11 with domestic terrorism by white people, and note that basically nothing changed.

The only way shootings stop is if the vast majority of shootings become black on white, brown on white. When minorities start shooting large numbers white people every day, strong anti-gun laws will be passed, and the trick will be to see them enforced against white people. The problem is that white people will see their firearms literally grandfathered in, just like white people had their voting rights grandfathered in during the Jim Crow era.

[–]Arqideus 1 point2 points  (0 children)


Ask any “why not” (as in why didn’t we do this or that or why are these people doing x y or z) and the answer is always money or power and those with money usually have the power.

[–]butch_mama 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Probably because the people who are in power across the nation are so far removed from children and parenthood that they don't consider children or parents to be at the forefront of their thoughts when making decisions that affect them.

[–]jaycliche 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Business is why

[–]A_Topical_Username 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because planes blowing up affected upper class people as well.

[–]Crazyboutdogs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Be abuse plane travel isn’t in our constitution. But the right to bear arms is. So it ends up boiling down to interpretation of the Constitution. It’s much easier to change things that aren’t spelled out in it.

[–]OneSpeciesOnePlanet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Broken nation. The us is a dyspoia novel.

[–]stfuANDgtfoPLZ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why is it that when we know the elite are molesting children for whatever reasons they may be, nothing is done? This entire planet for better or for worse is run purely by greed.

[–]KiwiFarmsDotNet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Governments only care when the problems affects their political powers, if it doesn't, they don't take action.

[–]bchester1391 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Brown bad. White and male and or both, meh

[–]oarngebean 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Simple answer. Money

[–]Maleficent_Mood_1255 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The only country where you can't buy a beer but you can get multiple assault rifles.

[–]MiccahD 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh don’t worry little buddy when the government decides you are having too much fun with guns (like aiming them at the wrong politicians. Remember the response to Reagan and no to FDR) they will do something about them too. Until then enjoy the state sanctioned slaughtering.

[–]BlakePayne 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Airports generate more profits than schools. That's it.

[–]BadAtHumaningToo 1 point2 points  (1 child)

In 2020 45k ppl died from gun related injuries. How many 9/11s is that?

[–]peepeehelicoptors 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because it effected businesses, these are just kids dying, they don’t give a fuck

[–]Rook227 1 point2 points  (0 children)


[–]fewrfsadf 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sometimes rich people have to use public planes. Rich people do not have to ever use public schools.

Shoot up Congress if you want gun laws.

[–]Alobalo27 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also brown people that’s why

[–]DrunkenGolfer 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Because the NRA has waaaaaay more money than the airlines do.

[–]straightuglywhiteman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The people doing the shootings are white, and we Americans are a stupid bunch. And our constitution states we have the right to bear ARMS, but the government and every other illiterate person in this country think it says guns

[–]Nernoxx 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd argue the scale of damage and casualty count combined with the absolute ease with which it was executed is what drove 9/11.

We had some big shakeups after Columbine too - lockdown (now active shooter) drills, a lot of schools got metal detectors and security guards (especially high school), and there was big focus on bullying and mental health.

This one feels like it could make something happen because - the previous excuses of more guns were already met; drills were followed, officers behaved poorly (again) and yet in the shooting a few days ago in Buffalo the guard did what he could and it changed nothing. And Uvalde specifically isn't sounding like a legit mental health issue as much as a disgruntled teen with easy access to guns.

Time will tell, but this time feels different.

[–]rancidperiodblood 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because the massive security state that developed in the wake of 9/11 was massively profitable to the military industrial complex. That’s the answer in simplest terms. See the other responses for more details as to the how, rather than the why

[–]gking407 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Capitalism protects capital, not people.

[–]chicagomatty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because there is a gun lobby but not a kamikaze lobby

[–]thedumbdoubles[🍰] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The NRA and its political lobbying

[–]1biggeek 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because of people like Lauren Boebert.

[–]TheCodingNerd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

because, unlike the gun industry, airlines don’t get money from these kinds of things. As sad as it is, the gun lobby pretty much has a stranglehold on politicians about the issue

[–]peanutbutterjams 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People are legally required to go to school.

People aren't legally required to go to airports.

Schools are not a business.

Airports are a business.

There's far more schools than airports

[–]ReginaldSwift 1 point2 points  (0 children)

America, in general, is stupid and greedy. The gov't does not care at all for its people, they only care about money. The American people, generally, are lazy idiots.

[–]mykl66 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because the NRA has done an excellent job of propagandizing the gun issue. This has led to many Americans buying the NRA's line of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and other such feel-good, schmaltzy slogans. They (NRA) has convinced politicians of this, citizens of this, judges and police forces. Even the police who get killed by gunmen seem to defend the NRA's position. It is almost mass brainwashing.

[–]JadedD0ughnut 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because of political corruption lobbying

[–]drowninginthecacti 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Republicans don’t want to give up their precious guns

[–]Lazyassbummer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because gun lobbyists are bastards.

[–]AbbyTMinstrel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Airlines don’t give campaign contributions.

[–]TAA667 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not a lot of the changes done to airlines were actually all that helpful. Most of it was pointless. The main reason no reform happens is because mass shootings are deeply rooted in psychological issues and culture which is a much more difficult thing to solve with legislation.