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.
If you’ve ever seen the difference a machine gun and a semi auto does to a body you’d be picky about it too
If you saw how dead the 4 year old is either way, you wouldn’t be.
There a lot of 4 year olds getting killed in school shootings?
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’m busting the balls of screeching, impotent fools that want to disarm the population.
Big scary gun make big scared guy feel safe?
Bootlickers demand their own rights be taken away instead of bettering society?
That question implies that any number besides zero is anything besides “infinitely too many.”
No you are right. Toddlers shoot their family instead
It is good to see young people taking climate action into their own hands
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.
Oh yeah because all those smoking bans sure failed to clamp down on one of America’s most popular drugs.
So you agree that they all should be confiscated?
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.
Go ahead. Say it. Stand your ground.
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.
European here.
Have never shot anyone. Not owning a gun means that I’ll probably continue not shooting people. It’s a very effective method.
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.
We need the linux neckbeard copypasta but for guns.
I take your point loud and clear.
Aside:
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.
So I have to read Mein Kampf to tell people Hitler’s ideas were terrible?
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.
That wasn’t the claim. The claim was:
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?
Also, don’t be ableist.
do you want to engage meaningfully with hitler?
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.
Too real. I don’t know how internet gun nuts have yelled at me that assault rifles aren’t real and the media invented it.
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.
Thanks for demonstrating.
o7
This is who we are.
A garbage, labor camp of a country filled with selfish people who’d literally rather have the option to buy whatever they want than protect children from a continuous stream of violent death, when they aren’t calling to further defund their schools to cut the taxes an actual society would require to function.
Oh, but I better root for the home team like its a fucking game, amirite? At this point, I’m rooting for climate change, AI, and all our other for profit monuments to greed to eat us and wipe the board clean.
This is why you should have bought and practiced with a weapon for self defense.
Because if the bad guy is in your house, the police are too far away to be helpful.
Yeah, those kids at Uvalde should have had weapons training.
Maybe we should start arming the teachers, how are we possibly going to disarm a nation with more guns than people?
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.
Uvalse shouldnt have the teacher leave the door open, nor should Barney Fife have been on security detail.
So what is your plan in the above closet scenario?
Pray and pee your pants?
I don’t know, how about not having the police all stand outside doing nothing while the shooter was killing children?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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.
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”.
My favorite from them is “define assault weapon.” My definition is “who the fuck cares? Let’s regulate all guns.”
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.
What part of my reply made you think that I was talking about you in particular?
All guns after 1899 are regulated chief. How about we fix our society instead of trying to collect millions and millions of lawfully owned firearms.
Here we can start with
Singler payer healthcare
Ending the war on drugs
Ending for profit prisons
Paying teachers more
Making a living wage law
Building more schools and funding under funded schools in inner cities where 95% of the violence happens
Creating safety nets for all kids under 18, so they don’t have to worry about where their next meal is coming from or where they’re going to sleep.
While we’re at it, let’s get RCV and ban insider trading for Congress thrown in as well.
Wait, what?!? Nuance? GTFO of my guns bad echo chamber with your actually achievable solutions that I would normally otherwise support wholeheartedly!
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.
deleted by creator
Yep, no one wants to look at the root cause, they just want to use emotions vs facts these days.
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.
All guns after 1899 are regulated chief.
So no more mass shooting? Thanks, chief.
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.
Or you do a gun buyback program like Australia did. Then make firearms illegal without a license and a reason.
Then, like all other first world countries, you literally see murder plummeting.
Murder rates have been dropping in the US for decades, mass shootings are a small but high profile problem
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.
Because fix society hard, blame gunz instead.
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.
Your argument ignores the effectiveness of gun control in almost every other western nation.
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.
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.
Man you Americans just live in constant fear eh?
Nope, just like I don’t live in fear of crashing every time I drive…but I still wear my seatbelt.
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.
Can’t bump a single action six shooter. Sorry pal.
“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.
deleted by creator
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.
A lot of the comments written to him were hostile, he may of thought you were as well.
Then you’ll have no issue with banning bumpstocks then eh? And other mechanisms that move this from skill based to technology based?
No. Because the whole point of guns is to equalize people regardless of skill. Normal people can’t spend their lives training, terrorists can.
“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”.
Skill means people with resources and able-bodied. If you want to further centralize lethal power in the hands of those people that is your choice.
If only it were my choice.
deleted by creator
Look man, I just want less gun violence in this country. And my solution is to ban guns. If you have a better idea I’m all ears.
Fix society…and get to the root cause of why people are violent towards each other
These aren’t actual solutions. Taking aways all guns is a concrete step. We need concrete steps from the gun loving crowd.
Lol good luck with that, you anti-gun crowds really want to start a civil war that you wouldn’t survive in.
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.
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.
But it’s irrelevant, people just don’t want violent murderers to have the ability to fire large volumes of bullets at them first thing in the morning.
FFS, let us get a cup of coffee first!
If you really feel so strongly about it, you would educate yourselves the small amount required to even talk about what you’re trying to ban.
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.
The number one reason that I own guns is to protect my circle from the government gone tyrannical.
You are gonna defend yourself against Abrams tanks, Apache helicopters and predator drones with a rifle?
Remember you live next to a gun owner, so when they’re blowing up his house, your shits getting wrecked as well.
Also Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan all would like a word with you.
Yeah, what are you going to defend yourself with? Thoughts and prayers?
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.
Seems you don’t understand the comment. You can fear all you like. But the uneducated should have no say in what should be banned.
< votes for anti-abortion politicians
It’s all just Kabuki. Doesn’t matter the side.
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.
Pfft these kids don’t even know what kind of guns they’re being killed with…
-conservatives
Also, it’s worth noting that he would be just as dangerous with a knife or a car or a bow.
-also conservatives
They like saying “a bomb” these days. And then I like asking them which country with gun control has daily bombings.
deleted by creator
Syria…
“Would you believe, a boy scout with a pea-shooter?” - Maxwell Smart
deleted by creator
Spot on
Just don’t mention assault rifle, you’ll trigger someone.
(I got one!)
The best way to be taken seriously is to show how misinformed you are about the subject you’re pontificating on
Well the best way sure isn’t to use the word “pontificating” lmao
Shoe fits.
Lmfao dude you took that bait like a champ
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?
Looks like OP got another one
OP sure did own me by laughably uninformed yet insufferably opinionated. Trump voters own me like that too.
Yes, actually, he did. Semantics about the fucking definition of a goddamn “assault rifle” is a game that pussy-assed little bitches play.
It’s something that people who understand the issue do. People who scream about banning a thing that’s been illegal for 100 years are dipshits.
Cool. You are successfully arguing semantics instead of considering the issue of getting less kids shot in school.
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.
At least you have a solution unlike the other guy. I disagree with it, but at least it is an actual proposed solution.
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.
You still haven’t discussed the actual issue of how to stop people from getting shot up by guns.
I’ve made it to step 1, understand the problem. That’s further than you.
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.
You’re probably right, why understand a problem when remaining ignorant and screaming loudly is so much more likely to solve it
If they’re banned since the 30’s, how come I keep stumbling on YouTube content featuring them?
Note, I’m not from the US, so an ‘assault rifle’ to me is everything that is listed in that category in video games.
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).
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.
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.
Also they sunset the AWB because it didn’t do shit…VA tech and Columbine happened during the AWB…it was shit legislation based off emotional dribble.
Yeah, it was feel good legislation, total stroke job. They could bring it back tomorrow and it wouldn’t do a damn thing.
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.
The ban was in 1986 jfc.
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.
An AR-15 is still an assault rifle. It’s based on the assault rifle. Trying to hide that is just pandering to the anti gun side.
Ok, introduce a bill to ban assault rifles. I’m sure it’ll be very effective and solve the mass shootings problem.
(80s, but other than that you right.)
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
Unless you know the bare minimum about the thing you want to outlaw, let the adults handle outlawing it.
Anybody looking for an excuse to stop taking somebody seriously was never going to.
I don’t need an excuse. If they don’t have a clue what they’re talking about it’s a pretty easy decision.
Dude, an M-16 is an assault rifle.
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.
He forgot the thoughts and prayers, the best help they’ll ever offer.
Ooooh, I thought it was THOTS and prayers. That one still makes more sense though
Mmm tater tots
Thots and players
“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.”
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 🤔
*Weapons, ammo, and an ideology built on hatred.
Most mass shooters are right-wing nutjobs.
“extremists”
“lone wolves”
“few rotten apples”
Guns don’t kill people, the government does!
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.
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
(Corrected)
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.
Good point.
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.
And dry counties exist. I don’t know of many gunless counties.
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.
Lol interesting take on it. Big fan of not just bikes, climate town 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.
Only to take it out in public
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.
To use the car on publicly-owned roads.
I’m just clarifying why “treat them like cars” is a terrible argument.
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.
Those convicted of domestic violence are already federally barred from firearms ownership.
*except in Vermont where they allow it for some reason, and the federal govt lets the state get away with that. Your guess is as good as mine.
Yes, we got it passed, now we just need to enforce it.
I do agree, “eat the gun control we have at home before I buy you new cereal” I say.
Lol
“Those convicted of domestic violence are already federally barred from firearms ownership.”
But don’t cops walk around with guns all day?
HA!
Also to actually answer: “Yes but we all know laws don’t apply to them.”
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.
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.
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”
So if working conditions improve, it would be appropriate to implement stricter voter ID laws?
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.
The point of the right to bear arms is to have some defense against an oppressive government if needed.
Well that didnt work at all; they joined the oppressive government.
Want to get Republicans to jump on gun control? Just have minorities show up exercising their right to bear arms.
Ask Reagan.
deleted by creator
Worked in California with minimal shootings.
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 backed gun control. that’s what “worked”.
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.
Yes it is, but you do you and your history changing…gun control is rooted in racism btw.
What mental gymnastics did you perform to come to the conclusion that gun control is rooted in racism
Edit: history
You really don’t know the roots of gun control do you?
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).”
https://www.apa.org/pubs/highlights/spotlight/issue-269
And
“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.”
I think there’s some documentaries about it as well.
ronald regan didn’t like the black panthers
edit:
look at this!
Ah, I love the way this baits the Reagan jerkers.
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.
The only time the NRA actually agreed with Gun Control was literally as soon as the black panthers became a thing
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.
Yep, armed minorities are harder to oppress. Gun control targets minorities the most.
No, not really, even in the wild West towns would force you to surrender your firearms to the sheriff before you could go anywhere else in town.
Just because Reagan was a racist about it doesn’t mean the very concept itself is racist.
Honestly I have no hope for gun control in the US. What ever version we get will be so riddled with concessions it probably will be pretty racist.
Yes it is.
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.
You mean including the highly documented rationale that historian uncovered?
By the way, do you really think you could defeat the U.S. military with your gun collection? Even if you and a bunch of buddies got together?
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.
But mostly… fuck racists, especially kleenbhole.
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.
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
Wow, that’s the most racist thing I’ve read in ages.
That was exactly the point.
Don’t get out much?
Why, would getting out more make me a racist?
Historians could only “uncover” this reason because it’s buried under the actual reasons.
Buried under the actual reasons? That somehow contradict the uncovered reason? Sounds like bullshit to me.
All the rationale behind the constitutional amendments was highly documented at the time, public, and easily accessed and referenced.
Then how did bullshit theory that guns were to overthrow the government get buried for so long?
it wasn’t buried.
Ain’t no slaves now. You want to disarm black people so they can’t fight back.
The irony that I’m black then.
And you’re anti-gun? You mostly fuck educated white women or something?
Why am I not even slightly surprised that you’re against a black person having sex with a white person?
Am I not black enough? Lol
“By hiding from the guy and not letting him shoot you, you’re infringing on his 2nd amendment rights, so who’s the real monster here? Ok bye”
