“Also, there is no way that the gun was a part of this crime! Guns don’t kill people. Only the mentally unstable people we goad into mass shootings with the weapons and ammo we sell them kill people.”
To play devil’s advocate (and weather the downvotes for doing so), alcohol doesn’t drive drunk, and most people who use it do so responsibly.
If a bunch of peeps who don’t drink wanted to stop drunk driving, they would see the best solution as just banning alcohol. Its a simple solution and makes sense. Nations like saudi arabia have banned alcohol and have significantly less drunk driving incidents. It wouldnt make sense to them why so many people would resist such a simple and proven solution. If they won’t ban it all then atleast ban the liquor, etc.
Meanwhile the people who drink responsibly wouldnt want to have to give up drinking just because a few idiots drive drunk. They would see the best solution as finding ways to stop people from choosing (or being able) to drive drunk, while still allowing themselves to use it responsibly, but that is a much harder thing to do.
Of course, it’s illegal to buy alcohol under 21, and it’s illegal for someone to sell it to you if you’re obviously impaired. We have some restrictions about it.
What he said. Also it is illegal to private sale one to someone that you have a reasonable suspicion may be a prohibited purchaser. Even better than someone who is “obviously” a prohibited purchaser.
It’s illegal to buy guns under 18 and illegal to buy pistols under 21. And there’s the background check with every (in store) purchase, So there’s some restrictions
In the US (which I’m assuming you’re referring to, since the meme mentions the GOP), There is absolutely not a background check performed for every firearm purchase. That’s one of many restrictions people reasonably want placed on guns. Only 17 states have a universal requirement for gun sales. The federal law “requiring” background checks only applies to federally licensed sales. Private sales, gun shows, etc. allow for sale of guns with no background check, and often bypass age restrictions as well.
Maybe we should have licensing and registration requirements for guns like we do cars… nobody on the “guns aren’t the problem” side of the argument is ok with anything like that either.
There is no license, class, physical or psychological examination, registration, age requirement, background check, or permit required to purchase a car.
There are licences, classes, examinations, registration, age requirements and permits required to actually use the car though.
Also, cars have a viable purpose beyond being a weapon. Why are we trying to equate something whose main purpose is to transport but can be used as a weapon with something whose main purpose is to end life? If an object’s sole or main purpose is to cause physical harm, it should obviously be regulated more heavily than objects whose main purpose is not to harm, but can be used as a weapon in certain circumstances.
Yeah i feel like most people would be down with that. Same with taking guns away from domestic abusers. John Stewart (the problem with john stewart) had a great episode on gun control.
I am on that side of the argument and im fully in favor of registration requirements, in fact I think anyone who wants to own a gun should have to undergo regular psychological, mental, and physical health evaluations as well as required to take a gun safety course. Not that I speak for everyone of course but I also dont think Im a minority in this situation.
The counter argument to that is that it negatively impacts lower class people who are unable to take time off work to go do those things, thus disproportionately hindering lower class and minority rights.
And the counter argument to that is that there should be enough safety nets in place to allow all people to be able to take time off work as needed.
That would have people really confused. “We have to raise minimum wage to allow everyone the right to bear arms”
Yes… but since the purpose of those laws is only to suppress turnout amongst the poor, I don’t think anyone would be trying to pass them if being poor didn’t make voting harder…the 2nd group most impacted are the elderly and they tend to vote for folks that want to suppress the poor so there’s even less reason to pass them at that point.
Suppress turnout amongst the poor [and consequently certain demographics that are disproportionately poor]. Take a look at the history of gun control and you’ll see a familiar pattern to voter suppression.
I have an issue with psych evals: Ableism. Just because someone is depressed, has PTSD, has ADHD, whatever, doesn’t mean they don’t deserve the right to defend themselves. Furthermore it is currently federal law that if you are IVC’d under judge’s orders (which does require proof, but it is imprisonment short term and removal of rights for life, there should be proof), you now get flagged in NICs and can’t legally buy one, so at least we do have an acceptible version of this already.
Also I’d like to add, it would be a good .2sec before republicans add trans people to the no gun list because “41% suicide yadda yadda” and the democrat party will pass it because “gun bad.” It’ll get snuck in like they always do, “oh you want psych evals, ‘no trans’ or no deal.” Then they’ll have to choose between trans rights and the right to own the thing that can defend those rights from would be right wing attackers.
It is too easily weaponized against people already too stignatized, I don’t like it personally.
I like your analogy. I’m just trying to refactor based on the NotJustBikes mindset of a well-developed city that has little to no requirement for driving a powered vehicle.
“Drunk person riding their bicycle into the canal and drowning” doesn’t quite have the same impact.
That said, the Venn diagram of countries with cities designed primarily around car usage vs the countries with a serious gun abuse problem seems to intersect with just one country. So your analogy still stands.
Worst part about this shitty argument is that if they believe it’s a mental health issue then why are they so adamant about slashing spending for mental health programs and treatment 🤔
Good thing people never go crazy at their place of work and start shooting. Good thing people can’t wrestle guns out of other people’s hands. Good thing kids can’t figure out how to get access to a teacher’s gun. I can see no possible downsides.
Ok so what’s your solution? Banning all guns isn’t going to work, I know rednecks who’d rather die if you try to take their firearms. My solution for teachers isn’t perfect either, instead, maybe have security guards who conceal carry on the premise. It would be better than having everyone be sitting ducks.
As we’ve seen with Uvalde, police can be just as useless. These are just examples I came up with off the top of my head, in my eyes banning all guns isn’t possible, especially when you can literally 3D print guns at home without anyone knowing.
We could start by doing more than the bare minimum when it comes to regulation and keep guns out of the hands of people who do not have the mental health to have them including people who are reported for psych checks and people who are domestic abusers. We could also make mental healthcare and physical healthcare socialized.
But apparently those are much harder than just putting even more guns into the mix, which will, I’m sure, definitely not lead to even more deaths.
Healthcare is key, and I’m all for that. Background checks are hit or miss, but better than nothing. The real challenge lies in enhancing these checks to be more effective while respecting lawful ownership rights. I do agree with your points, may we hope for better days friend.
Oh, you want to know what I would do if I was hiding in a closet from an active shooter? Obviously I would pull out my M-16, kick down the door, then use suppressing fire to throw a grenade at the gunman. After that, I would just wait to be awarded my medal of valor.
Assault rifle means something, and there are very few of them in civilian hands, and they are (almost?) never used in crimes because they’re so hard to get already. Making them harder to get would accomplish nothing. Assault weapon is the made-up term that is based more on looks than function.
The NRA overthrew their leadership that supported the Mulford Act and pivoted the organization into a pro-gun political machine.
They used to be bipartisan, even playing a large part in Bernie Sanders’s first state-wide win. Then they started taking Russian money and supported the Republican party unconditionally.
The people don’t need to be taken seriously, the issue does. Arguing over semantics isn’t helpful unless it’s “Legislating against assault rifles won’t do anything because that’s not a thing. We need to …” And the words after the ellipsis can’t be “…do nothing.”
Assault rifles have been illegal since the 30s. You’re advocating a ban on something that’s already banned and has been for almost a hundred years. Do you see how stupid and unhelpful that is? Why should I take your issue seriously when you don’t seem to even understand it?
I have a solution, but the capitalists will hate it because it will impact their sales. Pass common sense SSRI laws and prohibit minors from taking them. Make it harder for adults to be proscribed them. Investigate doctors who over proscribe them.
Oh, in this case I have a solution too. We need to heavily regulate uses and distrubution of moon regolith. The solution is way better than that guy’s is, because there is not a lot of moon regolith available and it’s hard to get, so it will be very easy to achieve. Of course it has nothing to do with the problem, but neither is his
What? How is making a class of antidepressants harder to get at all a gun control solution? What the hell am I missing here? Did everyone just see “common sense” and “laws” and forget to read the rest?
And you’re appealing to emotion instead of making any effort to understand and effectively solve the problem you have strong opinions about. You’re entitled to your opinions but if you don’t know what you’re talking about maybe shut up, you’re not doing anyone any favors being an uninformed loudmouth.
No, you apparently don’t understand. The contemporary public refers to “military-style” weapons as assault rifles. That is, if the gun looks at home in the hands of a soldier in camouflage the general public refers to it as an assault rifle. Again, if you do not understand the discussion around gun violence in today’s world you should not be arguing over it.
Also, you’re still arguing semantics and haven’t actually said anything, in any of your replies to anyone, about what can be done to curb gun violence which is the exact point the OP meme was making.
Semantics my ass. Calling for a ban on something that is already illegal instead of addressing the real problem is going to get you nowhere and make you look foolish in the process.
Sure, boss, and when somebody cries about their kid getting hit by a truck on the way to school, you can show up and say, “Well, akshually, it’s a crossover SUV, so it has a unibody.” I’m sure that completely changes the issue. /s
If there’s an epidemic of people being killed by pickup trucks, and a bunch of dipshits are on the internet screaming “we have to ban SUVs!” despite SUVs already being illegal, then yes, yes I will.
How many school shootings have we had now? How could you not understand that kids geting shot is at the very core of the issue? You’re not calling out a fallacy here, you’re acting like a psychopath ignoring the issue.
You bait yourself to get triggered by an obvious joke. You argue semantics even after being called out on it and don’t even know what an appeal to emotion is. Ever wonder if you’re the one that needs to stop typing for a bit? You come of as nothing but the uninformed loudmouth you ask to shut up.
Whether you do it or not you’re defending it. Do you feel its constructive? If Tylenol was killing people, would it be helpful to go on the internet and post “holy shit, this is a real problem, why don’t we ban heroin”? Wouldn’t ignorant bozos posting nonsense on your behalf give ammo to your opponents?
I don’t give a shit if you agree with me. I’m giving you good advice it’s up to you whether you want to listen. You’re not helping anyone but your opponents by remaining ignorant.
I really do want to jump down your throat and point out your inconsistencies with everyone else but I really don’t feel like beating that dead horse right now
Instead I’ll just settle for reminding you what a fucking moron you are because this is the internet and personal attacks are fair game because it isn’t a formal debate setting where semantics actually matter you twat.
Ok, if you want to look like a dumbass and drag your side down, ensuring you never make any progress because you don’t even understand what you’re asking for, feel free I guess.
Again: playing semantics and deliberately ignoring the argument to make an irrelevant claim is a game that pussy-assed little bitches do. What is being discussed by the grown-ups in the group is something that has NOT been illegal for 100 years and has been a PROVEN success previously. This is the fucking reason it is being discussed.
If what is being discussed is assault rifles, those have been illegal since 1934. You’re right that it was effective, none of these mass shootings was perpetrated with an assault rifle.
Facts dont care about your feelings.
Really ironic statement considering I’m asking people to understand what it is they’re trying to ban and they’re coming back with WHO CARES CHILDREN ARE DYING
The ban was strengthened in 1986. Assault rifles have been essentially illegal since the national firearms act of 1934. Assault rifles have been used in 0 recent mass shootings, and people on the internet screaming for an assault rifle ban to solve the problem of mass shootings are fucking idiots.
Excuse me? What exactly do you think my understanding of the issue is? I’m not the one using the term “assault weapons” or pushing for a redundant ban on assault rifles. I’m just the guy saying “don’t let the conversation get stuck on the definition of types of guns otherwise we’ll never end up discussing gun control.” Different statements. Don’t pretend they aren’t, boo. Playing pretend is for kids, remember? Remember when daddy told you that?
Tbf I’d argue that we’re atill arguing definitions because the anti crowd refuses to learn them, instead opting for “nuh uh.” If, instead, the antis would use the new information to say something like “ok fine, assault weapons is the wrong term, let’s use their term and say that has to be banned,” the conversation would progress. Of course, the pro side would still disagree, but at least then the argument wouldn’t be like
“so the definition of assault rifle requires it to be select fire, that was banned in 1986”
“nuh uh, it is an assault rifle cause I said so. Weapon of war.”
Instead it’d be something like
“All rifles are only responsible for 500/60,000 gun deaths for a rate of .2%, banning ARs solves nothing.”
“Yeah but they are cosmetically similar to the rifles the Military uses and I don’t like that.”
An assault rifle is full auto, or burst fire, a machine gun basically. That’s also the case in every video game I’ve played. You can own them if you get a special federal license, it’s expensive so there aren’t many out there. Guys will set up businesses charging people $50 to shoot one for a few minutes. That’s probably what you saw on YouTube. No mass shooting in recent history was done with an assault rifle.
An assault weapon is an imaginary legal term created during the Clinton administration so it could look like they were doing something about gun violence. The awb defines assault weapons using superficial cosmetic items like a bayonete mount, a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, etc. The same gun with 2 of these is legal, 3 of them and suddenly it’s illegal despite no functional changes to the gun. Assault weapons and the assault weapon ban were idiotic ineffective political theater.
Mass shootings are usually carried out with a semi-auto rifle, which means it automatically reloads the chamber and is ready to fire another round as fast as you can pull the trigger. The most popular one is the ar-15. It’s the standard semi-auto rifle, they’re everywhere because they’re cheap, common, and reliable. They show up in mass shootings because they’re so common, not because they’re necessarily dealer than any other semi auto rifle. The AR stands for “armalite rifle”. It’s the civilian version of the M-16 assault rifle.
Can you provide proof of this claim? Because all I have ever seen is statistical proof that it did in fact work, and that’s why Republicans needed to sunset it.
My understanding is that it was quite effective and no one reversed it, rather, the law was written to only be in effect for 10 years, then the law expired because Congress did not renew it. If someone has good sources on this though (it’s effectiveness, ineffectiveness, whatever), I’m very interested to read more about it.
According to whom, and by what standard? That’s a really generic and platitudinous statement you have made there. What do you consider to be “preventing mass shootings”? Should there be a clause in there that says “please dont commit mass shootings!”?
If they’re banned since the 30’s, how come I keep stumbling on YouTube content featuring them?
Banned isn’t the right word. Heavily regulated (for an American) would be closer. To purchase a full-auto weapon, you need to undergo a background investigation including getting fingerprinted and pay a $200 tax. The same process is required for purchasing or creating suppressors, short barreled rifles or shotguns, calibers above .50, and explosive weapons like grenades, missiles, etc.
Manufacture of new legal-for-civilians machine guns was banned in the 1968 Gun Control Act, any legal ones you see on youtube or that you can rent at a range were manufactured before that bill. Because of the scarcity, they’re worth at minimum tens of thousands of dollars which is a greater financial barrier than the $200 stamp, roughly $4500 when the 1934 NFA bill was passed.
No machine gun that’s gone through the above process has been used in a crime by a civilian not in law enforcement, and only a handful of crimes have been comitted with the other items covered by the act.
There’s your problem, “video games” are not necessarily representative of reality.
“Assault weapon” is a term invented by gun control activists to A) sound scary to drum up support and B) expand their bans to handguns.
“Assault Rifle” is an actual term, where they got the idea, and the source of this intentional confusion caused by MDA and Everytown. Assault Rifles are defined as “A select fire rifle in an intermediate calibre intended for infantry use.” The bolded parts in the above definition mean the AR-15 is not in this catagory, as it is only semi-automatic (no select fire) and intended for civilian use, not infantry. The M4 and the M16 are both rifles that do fit the above definition, and the AR-15 is cosmetically similar, but the main function (the select/semi part) is different. In fact, civilians have not been able to own rifles that are select fire since 1986 (unless you have your Class III SOT, the permit required to own one, but for that you basically have to be building/selling them to mil and/or police).
Video game devs aren’t necessarily known for being experts on guns, laws, etc, but to be fair to them, they don’t need to be, because video games aren’t real (sadly, as much as I would love to live in my Viva Pinata 1 garden I have had to come to terms with the imposibility of my dreams).
Of course the reason they (those at “the top” of the gun ctrl debate, MDA, Everytown, etc) are trying to conflate select fire assault rifles and their visually similar but mechanically different civilian owned semi automatic rifles is because they want to slowly chip away at semiautomatics but it’s harder to drum up support from all but the most fervent with that position, so they pretend they’re select fire to trick people like those in these comment sections who don’t actually know how guns function, nor what any of those words mean, nor the gun control laws we already have, into banning them so then when absolutely fuck all changes except the 500/yr killed by rifles are now killed by pistols and they can say "see we tried the rigistry and whatnot and it did nothing, the jews are still commiting too much crime so turn in your guns or else we’ll round you up (sorry, errant Hitler quote about gun control, which he leveed against the jews yet expanded for his crews), so we have to ban it all.
Unless you know exactly all the specks of a weapon used to muder you, you aren’t allowed to ask not to be murdered. It’s that one simple trick that all murderers should remember
The term comes from the military who wanted a lower calibration version of an M-14 (which was defined as a battle rifle. M14s are 7.62mm nato, m16s are 5.56mm nato)
The definition is a selective fire (semi auto, 3r burst, full auto, or whatever the preferred flavor is today,) chambered for an intermediate (5.56 nato) cartridge.
Assault weapon is the term that has no specific meaning, and is now used to refer to SBRs and other weapons based on or otherwise derived from the AR-15- more broadly any semi auto rifle with a large box magazine derived from a weapon meant for combat. (The 94 assault weapons ban followed the broader definition. More or less)
What ever you want to call them, AR derivatives need to be controlled. Especially SBRs.
I know so many people who think they are helping by critiquing like this when they are not. And also expect a “thank you” for their destructive distraction. If there were a hell I hope they are the first to burn or freeze in it.
In this case I do think it’s a good response. Both sides have a boogeyman, but it’s time for The Final Nightmare. This time, Freddie’s dead. Or wait, maybe we want to avoid little Freddie being dead. My point is, many are intentionally talking at cross purposes, using loaded terms to invoke rage at their target rather than actually discuss what’s in their crosshairs. Someone needs to smack their hands with a ruler until they grow up.
While we do need a better way to limit the violence people commit with firearms, I have no better idea how but I know it starts with actually talking, using the same vocabulary, facing the same reality, finding goals we can agree on.
It starts by making your country better. More like in Europe here. It’s like the US actively goes out of its way to punish people who weren’t born with a silver spoon up their ass. The way the American systems work seem to me to be actively toxic to a regular person’s mental health.
So you have a country full of a large population of people getting mentally damaged from unnecessary and avoidable stress in life… And THEN there are also loads of guns.
“But most gun deaths are from people using pistols to commit suicide” gee I wonder if that doesn’t mean something, hmmm?
You’re not wrong here, but the firearms aren’t making us violent. We need to fix our society, but instead you have one side wasting political capital on emotional legislation that won’t get passed and won’t fix anything even if it does.
American here, have guns, own my own range… never shot anyone and the likelihood of me shooting someone is a rounding error in the other shit that could kill me. Sounds like you have more probability of shooting someone than I do even.
Bruh. The age of shooting victims is what you’re getting picky about here?
Also, your comment about seeing the effects of a machine gun vs a semi-auto somehow making you more pedantic is bullshit. I’ve seen both, and am still capable of carrying on a reasonable discussion about firearms with people that don’t know much about them without getting hung up on ultimately irrelevant details.
Pull your head out of your ass and maybe you’ll actually be able to see the forrest for the trees.
I mean if we want to restrict anything an adult, teenager, or even older child could use to effectively kill four year olds, that’s a long list.
Targeting the most popular rifles in the country is a poor choice policy-wise though. It does very little to reduce homicide in general, and only maybe somewhat reduce casualties from a category of violence that’s claimed about 1400 people since the sixties.
Anything that an adult, teenager or older child could use to effectively kill a 4 year old? Not really. That’s a lot of amputations and we’d have to come.up with a disposal plan for all those arms and legs. Though I guess with everyone being a quadriplegic the ban on boxcutters would be easier to stomach.
Being serious though, look at homicide weapon stats in the US. If you wanted to prevent homicides, you’d restrict handguns and crack down hard on gang crime. For example, crank up penalties for concealed carry without a permit up to something just shy of extreme and make it somewhat more difficult to get a permit (not remotely impossible, but basically thoroughly vet people for it and have a yearly renewal that repeats the whole process). Rifles are not remotely a common homicide weapon - more people are killed bare handed in a given year in the US than are killed with rifles of any description.
This is the if not “100% effective then 0% effective” fallacy. It entirely ignores the issue.
Listen very closely: NOBODY. IS. SAYING. ALL. CRIME. WILL. STOP.
Do you understand this? Do you grasp this basic tenet? If so then we can move forward:
The issue being addressed is MASS SHOOTING EFFICIENCY.
MASS.
EFFICIENCY.
Do you understand what these words mean?
IF you still want to defend weapons of MASS SHOOTING EFFICIENCY then I demand that you also openly declare that we should have these weapons and be free to use them to repel MAGAts, trumpers, radical right republicans and fascists…because that is who is using them aginst us.
Police kill on average 1k civilians a year…aka 1/40 of all gun deaths, including the 66% of the 40k~ a year that are suicides… the majority of which are minorities…so no it’s not working.
Republicans aren’t gun owners, they just use it as a wedge issue to get votes. They, just like the NRA, would love to make only rich people be able to afford defensive tools. Thinking that all gun owners are Republicans is hilarious.
It’s literally the reason behind much of the first gun control laws. Things were fine until whites got scared when they realized African Americans have the same access to guns and they might start defending themselves against the oppression they continued to face in America. Similar to drug law, gun control is very much rooted in racism and NIMBY mentality.
it’s so beautifully constructed. from the “worked hand in hand with the nra” bit, to the fucking QUOTE FROM MARX . i’ve considered recreating it from time to time but this version is just chefs kiss.
It’s pretty well known that the Black Panthers movement back in the 1960s and '70s that promoted black people to open carry weapons was a huge motivation for Republicans, the NRA and Ronald Reagan to pass gun control legislation.
Yes that’s right, I said the NRA supported gun control regulation:
“Many of these gun laws specifically and explicitly restricted Black persons’ ability to possess and carry firearms. A more recent and salient historical example is the Mulford Act of 1967, which outlawed the open carrying of loaded firearms. The Mulford Act was signed into law by California’s Republican governor Ronald Reagan with the support of the National Rifle Association. Although it is not explicitly stated in the act, the passage of this particular gun control law was motivated by the open carrying of loaded firearms by members of the Black Panther Party who were conducting patrols in Oakland neighborhoods to protect Black residents from police brutality (Anderson, 2021; Cottrol & Diamond, 1991; Winkler, 2011).”
“The law, AB 1591—better known as the Mulford Act and named for its author, Alameda County Republican Assemblymember Don Mulford—banned the carrying of firearms in public, making it a felony to do so without a government-issued license.”
Historians could only “uncover” this reason because it’s buried under the actual reasons. All the rationale behind the constitutional amendments was highly documented at the time, public, and easily accessed and referenced.
As to your second paragraph, yep, yes, sure. We got beat by a bunch of illiterate desert goat rapists and jungle Asians. Just need to outlast the political will of the oligopoly
No, I’m saying what I said was mild, and you should get out more to see what real racism looks like. I’m just talking some mild shit about some crappy broke ass cultures that resisted the full might of America. If you clutch pearls that I called the Taliban a bunch of goat rapists, you should see how they describe YOU.
First of all, fuck this racist guy commenting to this thread. I hate that his kind are so often associated with people like myself who believe our population should remain armed.
Second of all, the military cannot be called into domestic affairs, so your “question” is irrelevant. Maybe read more about history and the constitution before spurging your nonsense all over the place.
Where does the Constitution say the military cannot be involved in domestic affairs? You are probably thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act, which does limit the use of the U.S. military in domestic affairs, but wasn’t passed until 1878 and could be repealed.
It is worth being conversant and properly educated about the things that are important to you if you want to engage meaningfully with people who disagree. That means knowing the vocab, syntax, and lingo.
For example, if you hate manga / anime / Japanese character retardation like I do, it’s worth knowing the difference to tell people it’s stupid on their own terms.
No, but if you say something like “if we would have just shot all those communists like hitler after world war 1 things would have been a lot better” people arent going to listen to anything else you have to say.
It is worth being conversant and properly educated about the things that are important to you if you want to engage meaningfully with people who disagree. That means knowing the vocab, syntax, and lingo.
So I will ask again in a different way- why do you need to be familiar with Mein Kampf or even a single Hitler speech to have an engagement with someone defending Hitler? Isn’t “he murdered millions of innocent people” enough? What more needs to be said there? What nuance is necessary?
Here was your example:
For example, if you hate manga / anime / Japanese character retardation like I do, it’s worth knowing the difference to tell people it’s stupid on their own terms.
Why? Why is it worth it? Why isn’t “I hate what I’ve seen, I think it’s terrible and I don’t want to watch anymore” enough? Do you actually watch all anime to know why you don’t like anime?
No, but you ought to know what some of the ideas were; conversant does not mean expert. It’s only really necessary to use the right vocabulary if you want to change any minds, but it’s STILL better not to use words that are actively incorrect (and are also painfully simple and germain to the discussion).
If the point is just to be loud and obnoxious for people who already superficially agree with you, by all means, throw all this out: you can just be really mad about Hitler’s treatment of Jews in focus camps while he was the leader of Poland.
Haven’t we had many records of “good guys with a gun”
Who pull out their weapon and then either get shot by police who mistake them for the shooter or put it back because they can’t tell what’s going on in the chaos?
You don’t CCW to be some stupid fudd sheep dog. You carry so you have a force equalizer and so you can protect yourself and others around you…not to go hunting for someone shooting others.
Out of nearly 560 mass shootings this year, we are looking at something ridiculous like less than 1% was a “good guy with a gun” that helped. And for some of those “good guy with a gun”, they also end up dead from police shooting at them.
In other words, you’re more likely to hope the shooter is struck by lightning.
Most of those “mass shootings” are gang violence, and when a shooter gets taken out by another shooter it’s just part of the violence.
The mass shootings where the point is a massacre have a slightly better rate of “good guys with guns,” but still admittedly not great.
It’s completely irrelevant though, the point of the right to bear arms is so people can join a radical militia and help put down slave revolts, conquer land from the Indians, and fight tyranny, in the order of importance to the Founding Fathers.
This is why I never took the Republican Party seriously, even before the days when they came out as being domestic terrorists.
Anyone who is honestly more afraid of not having a gun than they are of not having a doctor, has the mindset of a 7-year-old who’s Daddy just let him watch Die Hard.
Well here’s some, 1 or 2 of which the police did indeed do that but tbh at least some other people were saved if not the defender. At least he actually did kinda die a hero even if the cops are stupid and trigger happy (what else is new?)
Eh just let em keep moving the bar, makes em look silly.
“That never happens, show me ONE example”
“Here’s like 50”
“That isn’t enough, it still isn’t 100% of the time so somehow I’m right, and I’m going to ignore how the shooters target gun free zones to lessen the chance of said armed resistance so gun control actually lowers the rates of ‘good guys with guns,’ and don’t you DARE bring up the fact that Harvard estimated ‘a more realistic’ estimate than Kleck and Lott at 100,000 dgu/yr, which is still a raw 40,000 over our gun deaths and 88,000 over our intentional homicides /yr respectively, and that’s the low estimate. Gun defense bad, knife crime good, i know it doesn’t mean much when you’re getting vivisected but at least he gave us time to run away and leave you for dead!”
They love these little semantic games. That’s not a machine gun! Your argument for gun control is invalid!
But there are all sorts of tools that turn an AR-15 in a fully automatic machine gun.
Anticipating that bump stocks would be outlawed post-Vegas, Bogard said, he began developing a new device that uses a similar principle. By changing the configuration of the trigger mechanism, the design enables a shooter to harness the recoil and pull the trigger extremely fast. In a sales pitch delivered by Bogard at one gun show recently, he claimed the modification allows him to empty a 30-round magazine in 2.3 seconds.
No. We just don’t want people trying to ban things they don’t have even a basic understanding of. When someone says “ban high capacity clipazines” it tells us they don’t even know what they are talking about.
I would be for a ban of semi auto weapons period. Bolt action is more than good enough for hunting or target shooting, heck even home defence, a shotgun is pump action but still highly effective.
Then how about in instances where it is unlikely for the vast majority of people in one of the most populated countries in the world to learn about something like guns and how they work, we just have a registry of firearms that are approved for use in the US. Manufacturers can form fill and submit new equipment to be on that list legalizing them to be sold to the public through authorized dealers and then we don’t ever have to worry about the broad sweeping bans on weapons that probably shouldn’t have been in the hands of the aforementioned underqualified, less than educated civilians. Especially in cases where those civilians may intend to do harm to other, less than educated civilians.
It should not be a requirement that I know how a weapon works to fear harm from that weapon. I should not have to know the difference between the pomel and the guard of a sword to be allowed to fear being cut apart by one. Telling people to educate themselves does nothing for your argument. All you are saying is “I’m smarter than you and you’re wrong.” And that’s just not helpful in cases where regardless of one’s education on the matter of guns, we still hold different views on which guns people should be allowed to carry.
I do not care if it’s a clip or a magazine or if it’s bump-fire or fully automatic or machine automatic. You know the intention of people’s words when they are concerned about these matters and want legal restrictions put in place. It should not be accessible to civilians to fire 10s of bullets a second.
Preventing mass shootings from happening is a matter of restricted and monitored access. There are hundreds of countries where gun violence is a non-issue. Why is it an issue here? How do we be more like countries where it is not an issue? What steps can we take to not fear for our lives? I don’t like having to look over my shoulder when I go out.
There is nothing wrong with being conversant in proper terminology.
“These people” aren’t the only ones who play semantic games: if you have ever wondered, then been punched in the taint, about what any of the letters in lgbtqia+ mean you will understand how ridiculous people of any ideology get about using the “right words”.
It’s not semantics. When legislation is being written, it has to be very specific. If you can’t even get the definition correct, how are you going to be expected to accurately write laws about it? It’s even worse when the general population is pressuring their representatives to write laws on something they also know nothing about. There is a very clear distinction between semi-automatic and automatic. To say otherwise, you are absolutely clueless or intentionally being dishonest.
You can bump fire any gun without a bump stock or a trigger mechanism, on a lot of guns it’s stupid easy and you can do it without experience. It doesn’t turn it into a “fully automatic machine gun”. Someone with barely any firearm experience can take any pistol or rifle and be shown how to bump fire within like a minute. It has nothing to do with accessories, although things like those can make it a little easier.
I’m a big advocate for better gun control, but what you’re implying is just dishonest, even if unintentionally.
Posting that kind of stuff makes you sound like you have no idea what you’re talking about (the way you worded it just sounds cringey) which makes people less inclined to be influenced by what you say, and hurts support of gun regulation by convincing witnesses that everybody who likes gun control is misinformed.
“I don’t care about guns deaths, just the guns that scare me the most”.
Implying that a revolver isn’t used in crime to kill people is hilariously misinformed ignorance. More people every year are killed by revolvers, than a plastic semi auto rifle.
What are you on about? Care to put any other words in my mouth? There’s plenty of things you can say about me but literally nothing that you just said has any relevance to me at all. Thank you very much.
“Everyone can kill people regardless of skill” seems much worse than 'only highly skilled people can". None of these shooters ever “spent their life training”.
I literally posted how to solve the majority of our violence in this comment chain your in. I’ve also posted these things before…so yea I’ve got plenty of ideas and tons of research on the topics.
Yea, had to really zoom out to see your screed. And I also don’t really agree with you that this would solve these mass shootings. Would it lower day to day gun violence? Maybe. Do I think we should implement a lot of those? Yes. Either way these events don’t stop until you melt down every weapon in this country.
Mass shootings weren’t really a thing until about 30 years ago. Our society has had decades to break down and become what it is now. You will never get rid of all the weapons, and if you tried you would need to kill a lot of people.
It’s pretty easy to get guns in my country yet there’s still not much gun violence. Similarly a lot of the states with the most lax gun laws in the US have the least gun violence.
That’s because legally speaking, it is not a machine gun.
Disbarring effectiveness from the conversation (although bumpfire is hilariously innacurate compared to true fully automatic fire), bumpfire also requires a degree of skill to actually pull off, even with a bump stock, as you have to manipulate the firearm in a way that it actually can continuously fire, something that would be very difficult to do in a stressful situation.
Bumpstocks also make semiautomatic fire much more difficult.
I should clarify that I’m not defending bumpstocks, I’m just saying that banning bumpstocks was a farce, especially since you can still bumpfire without them due to the existence of physics.
I would imagine bump stocks are actually less effective than regular aimed semiautomatic fire in just about every situation. That’s why bans like this are pointless. People don’t realize how fast a person can already shoot a semiautomatic rifle, while actually being able to properly aim at what they are trying to hit.
You’re the one who acts like more laws will stop these shootings. They’re not even enforcing the ones on the books…at the end of the day, you either tell the truth and have the military go door to door and round up the firearms, causing a civil war or you put in more feel good laws about firearms you think look scary.
Australia has around 1mil firearms in private hands…had a 60% turn in rate, and never had the murder rate we do anyways. If 60% of the USA turned in the firearms, you’d be left with over 100 million still out there.
It’s going to take 20-40 years to get into a comparable state to other first world countries. The difference is whether we start now or in 30 years. If we start in 30 years, it will take 50-70 years.
No it would not, it would take hundreds of years a potential millions of lives, because you just started a civil war…and you’re not going to like who the military sides with.
Whatever man. I don’t think you’re thinking your threats through. I think the leadership in the military; 1. Wouldn’t care about this because it doesn’t affect them, and 2. Are way more liberals than you give them credits, and 3. Are tired of the bullshit the Maga gun nuts are putting them through.
And I don’t believe a minute this would start a civil war. If Jan 6 didn’t start a civil war this definitely wouldn’t.
Most of the ground pounders are not liberals, most of the military doesn’t just live on bases around the globe, most of the military lives in the same neighborhoods as guns owners…and Jan 6th was like 1k fucking idiots basically trying to destroy shit like children. Not millions of people who would over night become combatants because of a few people who want to kill people they disagree with.
It’s ironic because guns at the end of the day are a tool to enact the will of it’s user. Take the gun away, and you still have a problem to face.
All that guy is gonna do is find a gun illegally or something else to do what it is he is going to do. Mass shooters will steal box vans, people will go on knife stabbing sprees, police will become more oppressive as they have nothing to fear from the people anymore.
It’s funny that I tell people this all the time. I would say I lean more toward the left, but liberals think that if you aren’t 100% a liberal, you’re a conservative, and that’s why we will never experience the change we need to see in this country.
Always said, if the Dems ever want to control the gov. For a long time, just drop gun control and be in support of firearm rights. They’d wreck every election.
Ah yes, every country and their people is the same, including their culture and politics.
The US is a unique situation because unlike many of those other countries, the US continued to be incredibly saturated with guns and now we have firearms that are incredibly easy to access even outside of gun stores.
My argument ignored nothing, the US is not those countries, it’s the US. Your argument also ignores something else, that being that those countries don’t necessarily have lower murder rates than the US.
Too many guns causing issues is not a difficult problem to solve.
Don’t necessarily have lower murder rates? The only ‘european’ country with a higher murder rate than than the USA is Russia. In fact the worst murder rate in europe in 2020 (year I’ve got the figures for) was held by Hungary, and even then it is half of what the USAs was.
Ah yes, telling people that that they can’t have guns, that’ll just make the guns disappear.
Tell me exactly how you think that it should be implemented? Every approach I’ve ever seen has so far been either extremely unrealistic or a massive violation of several amendments.
Aside from that, removing guns is not going to lower the death rate by very much in comparison to European countries for other reasons, such as affordable healthcare, livable average/minimum wages, the people in Europe tend to live a higher quality of life than people in the US.
If people want to kill, they are going to use the easiest tool in their arsenal to do so, guns just happen to be number one on that list. Regulating guns only hurts the people, not criminals. Having a gun doesn’t just make someone want to go out and kill people.
I want to make it very clear that I am not advocating for pro-gun anything, I am saying the issue lies with the many fundamental problems in the US. Living in the US today is incredibly stressful if you are not rich as shit, and it makes a lot of people crack.
I don’t think a single one of the things you said would help curb gun violence or even school shootings at all. Your list is nice for everything else but how about addressing the glorification of guns and the shooters in the media? Maybe regulate the incitement of violence online and in the political discourse? How about blocking the radicalization of young men via dangerous conservative rhetoric online, eg. YouTube? Handle cases of bullying that go actively overlooked? Maybe intervene in child abuse and provide help for teenagers with poor mental health who feel ostracized? And the most important of all, block the easy access to these damn guns?
I bet someone better educated on this topic could come up with a better list. But my point is that you’re dying on this tired hill of “it’s not the guns” in this thread but you’re failing to hit the nail on the head on everything else while being condescending towards everyone else:
Because you’re not even interested in addressing the real issue (and fail to provide a reasonable, insightful solution) so long as nobody’s touching the damn guns. What you’re doing is akin to whataboutism. What the heck does insider trading in Congress have to do with anything?
I don’t think a single one of the things you said would help curb gun violence or even school shootings at all.
Most “school” shootings are drug and gang related in inner cities, with handguns. Rifles are very rarely used, hell, they’re very rarely used in murders in general. Most of our gun homicides are from gangs and drugs, not from random shootings. Ending the cycle of locking up drug users and keeping drugs illegal which is a major source of income for these gangs would start curbing the violence over night. Making sure kids have safety nets to go to and not gangs also would stop the flow of new members to gangs.
Your list is nice for everything else but how about addressing the glorification of guns and the shooters in the media?
How do you plan on doing that? You going to ban violence in movies and video games? Or ban rap/rock music? You going to ban the press from reporting on murders?
Maybe regulate the incitement of violence online and in the political discourse?
Uhh again how do you plan on doing this? You going to setup a great wall just like china has and enforce it via draconian police?
How about blocking the radicalization of young men via dangerous conservative rhetoric online, eg. YouTube?
Apparently you think only white christian male Republicans shoot people…
Handle cases of bullying that go actively overlooked?
Sure, I’m game for that, but I’d be covered with more funding so we have smaller classes…like I said above
Maybe intervene in child abuse and provide help for teenagers with poor mental health who feel ostracized?
Yea…I said that…safety nets for anyone under 18…
And the most important of all, block the easy access to these damn guns?
And how do you plan on doing that? Most guns used in crime are not purchased legally.
I bet someone better educated on this topic could come up with a better list. But my point is that you’re dying on this tired hill of “it’s not the guns” in this thread but you’re failing to hit the nail on the head on everything else while being condescending towards everyone else:
I’m being condescending because the mass majority of people who want gun control, have no clue about A) the current laws and B) what our gun violence actually comes from. You clearly have shown you don’t know in this very post.
Because you’re not even interested in addressing the real issue (and fail to provide a reasonable, insightful solution)
I mean I did provide solutions that would actually do something, or society is broken, removing a plastic rifle that scares you, isn’t going to solve it.
so long as nobody’s touching the damn guns.
Pandoras box was opened, and you’re not going to close it without causing a civil war. Taking rifles that make up a rounding error in the deaths each year is pants on head stupid. Because at the end of the day, you’re not wanting to stop the deaths, you’re wanting to get rid of something that scares you.
What you’re doing is akin to whataboutism. What the heck does insider trading in Congress have to do with anything?
I mean it’s not but ok…insider trading is where a lot of Congress gets their money, cut the flow means you cut their power and it means you’re less likely to have greedy fucks who aren’t in it to better society running the nation.
I think the one part I agree with is the rifles vs handguns debate. In spite of their prominence in mass shootings, I think the thing we need to regulate more is handguns, not rifles. They’re used for concealed carry - for bringing death to another person’s home. Shotguns and rifles are more than adequate for home defense or hunting, and they’re much less practical to steal or transport.
I think it was Australia that even restricted personal gun purchases to that category of weapon.
I feel like whoever first started bringing the term “assault weapon” to gun debates really killed the argument.
Admittedly, the only useful argument I’ve ever heard on the idea of grouping them has been the thought that they are purchased for their popularity and “coolness”, eg based on their appearance in some movie or video game, not specifically for their practical use of any civil kind. And, people who buy guns with no practical purpose in mind for them (as opposed to say, a person holding a restraining order expecting to defend themself) are more likely to end up letting them into an unsafe situation (by theft, jadedness, or pure accidents)
Still - not a strong argument, and I’d prefer it if we focused on how guns are used, not how black and tacticool they are.
I feel like whoever first started bringing the term “assault weapon” to gun debates really killed the argument
That would be the pro gun control side. They wanted to conflate assault rifles as in the actual military rifles, and the downgraded civilian semi-auto rifles. The distinction is important, look up the process it takes to purchase a machine gun in the US sometimes. They deliberately want a culture of ignorance around guns, because the goal is total disarmament, not effective regulation.
You can see the result in this thread and others. People will claim that someone can just walk into a Walmart and buy a machine gun. Politicians talk about banning “fully semi auto assault weapons”. The OP image and plenty of comments here mock the idea that someone should expect a base amount of knowledge in the subject before proposing new laws. Someone trying to define proposed regulation or correct a mistaken assumption about current laws is branded an “Ammosexual”.
I’d kindly ask you not to put words in my mouth. I am pro gun control. I am not pro total disarmament - logically, such a thing isn’t even at all practical, especially because it isn’t achieved in any of the countries we use for comparisons about “what works”.
People are constantly misinformed about tons of issues across the world, including journalists. Take your blame to them. Don’t use it as an illogical thread to make a different point.
Add comment